Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

STAFFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL (By Order)

Consideration, as amended, deferred till Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

National Coal Board (Computers)

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the National Coal Board to use British computers where such machines are available.

Mr. Pounder: asked the Minister of Power if he is aware of the policy of the National Coal Board in purchasing American computers; and if he will give a general direction in the public interest to the Board to use British computers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. John Peyton): The National Coal Board is a substantial customer of the British computer industry. I would not regard a general direction on this subject as appropriate.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my hon. Friend aware that recently the National Coal Board bought an I.B.M. machine for £150,000 and that British industry is facing intense competition in this field and is in danger of annihilation unless public bodies like the National Coal Board support British technology? Will

my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will have discussions with the Board regarding future policy?

Mr. Peyton: I have no doubt that the Chairman of the National Coal Board will note what my hon. Friend has said. I think I should make it clear that my information is that all data processing equipment now used by the National Coal Board is, in fact, rented and not purchased, the bulk of which is British made.

Mr. Pounder: Furthermore, is not my hon. Friend a ware, also within the scope of his Ministry, that the last orders placed by the Midlands, Eastern and South-Western Electricity Boards have all been for equipment supplied by United States companies and that the equipment could have been supplied on time and at competitive prices by British industry?

Mr. Peyton: I do not think that that arises on this Question, though the Answer that I have given, that I do not regard this matter as one which is appropriate for a direction, would stand even here.

Mr. Lawson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that American computers are now being built in Scotland, notably at Newhouse in Lanarkshire, and that they will, in fact, be built from the ground up? Will he do nothing to discourage the work of good American firms in this country?

Mr. Peyton: I shall certainly do nothing to discourage the work of good American firms in this country, particularly in Lanarkshire.

Mining Subsidence

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Power if he will give consideration to relieving the National Coal Board of the whole or part of the financial burden of compensation for mining subsidence damage.

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not time that some consideration was given to this matter? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are anxious that the legislation on compensation for subsidence damage


should be extended to cover consequential damage caused by subsidence, but that we are not anxious to put additional financial burdens on the Board? Would not his Ministry, therefore, now consider, with relation to proposals for extending the coverage for compensation for subsidence damage, that it is time that the Board was relieved of some of this weighty responsibility for compensation?

Mr. Peyton: I think it would be wrong to relieve the Board entirely of responsibility in this field. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the position of the surface owner was considerably improved by the 1957 Act, and I really do not see that things have changed to an extent which would warrant the upsetting of that settlement.

Mr. Loveys: Would not my hon. Friend agree that if compensation for mining subsidence became a national Exchequer charge there would also be many very immediate demands on the Exchequer, including the much more deserving cost of coast protection work?

Mr. Peyton: I do not think that I can be lured into coast protection work at the moment.

Mr. Swingler: I do not propose that the National Coal Board should be entirely relieved of responsibility, but would not the hon. Gentleman go as far as to consider that, in further legislation, compensation for subsidence damage should become an Exchequer responsibility and not involve an additional burden on the National Coal Board? Can we not have that?

Mr. Peyton: I must make it clear that there is no intention in the mind of the Government to introduce legislation altering the settlement reached in the 1957 Act.

Mr. Swingler: There should be.

Coke and Smokeless Fuels, Scotland

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to increase the production of coke and smokeless fuels in Scotland.

Mr. Peyton: Supplies of Gloco, Sunbrite, gas, electricity and oil are ade-

quate, and a new plant producing premium fuel has just been opened in Fife. As regards the longer term, steps are being taken as set out in the White Paper of December, 1963.

Mr. Bence: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that in West Scotland at least, and certainly in the new town of Cumbernauld in my constituency, it is becoming almost impossible in the winter months to obtain coke and smokeless fuel? Does the hon. Gentleman understand that in working-class homes people cannot stock up in the summer? They do not have the room and it is becoming almost impossible for those in smokeless zones to warm their houses in winter. Will the hon. Gentleman undertake to given a general direction quickly?

Mr. Peyton: I cannot undertake to give a general direction. Complaints about specific shortages must be addressed to the supplying industry. I should make it perfectly clear that coke is a by-product and it would be wrong to ask the gas industry to put down plant to make a fuel the production of which would be uneconomic.

Retail Distribution

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Minister of Power if he will give a general direction, in the public interest, to the National Coal Board not to engage in the retail distribution of coal on its own lorries.

Mr. Peyton: No, sir.

Mr. Kershaw: While appreciating my hon. Friend's difficulty in giving directions about this, that and the other, may I ask whether he will bear in mind that there is great anxiety in the retail trade lest the Board should take the opportunity of the reorganisation of British Railways to go into the retail trade in a much bigger way? Will my hon. Friend see that Lord Robens understands this?

Mr. Peyton: I have no doubt that Lord Robens will take due note of what my hon. Friend has said, but I understand, if it is any comfort to my hon. Friend, that the National Coal Board has no immediate plans to extend retail activities to the Gloucester area.

Mr. Jeger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that whereas many small distributors mix coals of different grades and


sell them at a high-grade price, when the National Coal Board retails coal it gives an honest deal to the consumer?

Closed Pits, Durham

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Power if he will state the number of pits closed in the County of Durham since January, 1960, and the number of coalminers those closures caused to be unemployed.

The Minister of Power (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I am asking the Chairman of the National Coal Board to write to the right hon. Member about this.

Mr. Shinwell: Pending this information, which no doubt will indicate a rather grave state of affairs, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman as a former President of the Board of Trade and with expert knowledge of what the North-East requires, to try to bring before the Coal Board and his colleagues in the Government the need to step up assistance to the industry?

Mr. Erroll: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive supplementary question. There is very close liaison between the National Coal Board and my former Department regarding pit closures and the need to bring in industries to take the place of pits which have been closed.

Mr. Shinwell: If Lord Robens writes to me as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, what am I expected to do?

Mr. Erroll: That is very straightforward. The right hon. Gentleman should read the letter.

Coal Prices, Scotland

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Minister of Power when he last had consultations with the Chairman of the National Coal Board about coal prices; to what extent the reduction of certain coal prices in selected areas was discussed; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Power what consultations he had with the Chairman of the National Coal Board about the proposed reduction of 2s. 6d. per ton in the price of coking coal supplied to the steel industry; and, in view of the ability of the National Coal Board to make

this price reduction, to what extent he discussed the possibility that the selective coal price increase of 10s. per ton imposed in Scotland two years ago should be discontinued.

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the Minister of Power what discussion he held with the National Coal Board about the proposed reduction in the price of coking coal for the steel industry; what information he received as to the estimated total benefit of this concession to the steel industry, and as to whether the price reduction will be uniform in all parts of the country; and what other reductions in domestic or industrial coal prices were proposed.

Mr. Millan: asked the Minister of Power what recent discussions he has had with the National Coal Board on their selective coal price increases in Scotland and the effect of these on electricity costs and industrial costs generally.

Mr. Erroll: The Chairman keeps me regularly informed of the Board's thinking on prices, and I understand that its proposals for reductions, which are being worked out, will be confined to coking coal. Although they will benefit the steel industry in Scotland as elsewhere, the Chairman has made it clear that he sees no early prospect of a general reduction in Scottish coal prices.

Mr. Gourlay: Does not the Minister consider that the 2s. 6d. per ton reduction in the price of coking coal announced by the Chancellor last week indicates a considerable improvement in the financial position of the Coal Board, but is he aware that the higher selective prices for coal in Scotland do not act as an incentive to industrialists to expand in the North? Will he, therefore, press the Chairman of the National Coal Board very soon to reconsider that decision and remove the 10s. increase in coal prices in Scotland?

Mr. Erroll: There is no evidence to show that selective prices of coal in Scotland have deterred any industrialists from going north of the Border. The fact remains that the Scottish Division is still not paying its way. I am glad to endorse the views of the Chairman of the National Coal Board on his price policy.

Mr. Hamilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman welcome this initiative of a nationalised industry in giving an example to private industry in the reduction of prices, but does he recognise nevertheless that, although there may be no firm evidence that industrialists are being discouraged from going to Scotland on this account, it may well be that in marginal decisions the selective price of coal is an influencing factor? Will he make further representations to the Board, particularly in view of representations made to him over a long period by industries in Fife and elsewhere, that the extra 10s. on industrial coal is having a deleterious effect already on industrial development in Scotland?

Mr. Erroll: I can only repeat that I am not aware of what is suggested in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I shall certainly ensure that his views are brought to the notice of my successor at the Board of Trade.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the market for coal is declining quite frighteningly, and does not he agree that customers for the Coal Board are important in all parts of the country? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the discriminatory high prices in Scotland and the North-West are in fact chasing customers away, and has not he read even Press reports of industrialists having left those areas, quite apart from those who have not been attracted into them, because of high prices? In the south of Scotland, particularly, the Electricity Board has explained that the high price of industrial electricity, the highest in the country, is occasioned by the high price of Scottish coal. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise now that, if he is to protect the economy of Scotland and the North-West, something must be done to bring uniformity into coal prices?

Mr. Erroll: The hon. Gentleman should realise that English coal fields are rather tired of subsidising Scottish coal fields.

Mr. Millan: That last reply in particular will cause a good deal of resentment in Scotland. Will not the right hon. Gentleman, at the very least, promise that he will keep in touch with the National Coal Board on this matter in view of the Government's policy to encourage industry to go to Scotland?

Mr. Erroll: I know that industry is going to Scotland. I also thought that Scotsmen were not afraid of the truth.

Mr. T. Fraser: In my supplementary question I spoke of the Scottish Division and the North-West, which happens to be in England. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the most economic and profitable pits in Britain are in Scotland?

Mr. Erroll: I was talking of the Division as a whole in Scotland. Of course, there has been a selective price increase in the North-West as well, and for the same reason.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider very carefully what he has just said, having regard to the position in the coal mining industry? Does he realise that he makes no contribution to good feeling in the industry by setting one district against another? Will the right hon. Gentleman do at least one thing with regard to the 2s. 6d. reduction in the price of coking coal to the steel industry? Will he ensure that none of it is used by the steel companies for anti-nationalisation propaganda?

Mr. Erroll: I do not think that they could afford to do so.

Smokeless Fuel Supplies

Mr. Boardman: asked the Minister of Power if he is aware of the shortage of smokeless fuels in the Leigh, Atherton and Tyldesley area; and what action he proposes to take to ensure adequate supplies.

Mr. Peyton: I am not aware of any general shortage of suitable fuels in these areas.

Mr. Boardman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a shortage, certainly a shortage of good fuel. Is he aware that many people in these coal mining areas have a built-in resistance to the use of any fuel other than coal, and the shortage and poor quality of these fuels add to the difficulty? Can he give an assurance that there will be an adequate supply of top quality fuels, particularly those which will give a satisfactory fire in an adapted grate?

Mr. Peyton: I am assured that Phimax, which is a reactive premium


fuel, can be delivered without any delay. The same applies to gas coke for burning in an open fire. I understand that there was some delay in deliveries of Sunbrite a short time ago, but this has now been put right.

Mr. Boardman: Will the hon. Gentleman make inquiries about how much damage is being caused by the spitting of Phimax? This is not a satisfactory fuel in an old grate. Will he look into it?

Mr. Peyton: Certainly, and I do not doubt that the gas board particularly concerned will be interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Holt: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that unless his Ministry takes a much more positive attitude in trying to raise the standard not only of Phimax but of other fuels required in smoke control areas, the whole smokeless zone policy will be held up?

Mr. Peyton: This whole problem was dealt with very fully, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the White Paper issued at the end of last year. The crux of the present situation is that there is ample solid fuel to maintain supplies in existing smoke control areas. As regards the future, there must be consultation between the local authorities and fuel suppliers. This is really very important. But I stress what I said before, that it would be wholly wrong to ask the gas industry to install uneconomic plant.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS

Coal-Gas Plant, Scotland

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Power if he will take steps, similar to those he has taken in north-east England, to ensure that main contractors for coal-gas plant in Scotland subcontract only to Scottish firms, in view of the unemployment situation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: The Government's aim of supporting employment in the development areas is well known to the Boards, but my right hon. Friend does not intervene in the placing of particular contracts. The Scottish Gas Board does

give preference to local firms, and asks its main contractors to do the same for sub-contracts.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recently a very reputable firm in Coatbridge was refused the right to tender for manufacturer's supplies for a public contract in the north-east of England on the ground that the Minister had issued a direction that employment had to be confined to that area? I am not quarrelling with that decision, but cannot Scottish firms be given exactly the same treatment? When they can undertake work in Scotland should not these contracts be given to Scottish firms?

Mr. Peyton: The manufacture of the light distillate reforming plant now being installed does not take place in Scotland but nevertheless it is a fact that nearly half of the value of the Board's major contracts is placed in Scotland and much of the remainder goes to other development areas.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have a letter in my possession in which the Minister outlines his policy in this respect? Does he not think that if Scotland can supply 100 per cent. of the requirements, Scottish firms should have the opportunity of doing so just as firms in the north-east of England have at present?

Mr. Peyton: My right hon. Friend has no responsibility for the South of Scotland Electricity Board, but the Scottish Gas Board, for which he can answer, is very anxious to place as much work as possible in Scotland.

Underground Storage

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Power whether he will introduce legislation in this session to provide for the underground storage of gas.

Mr. Erroll: I am anxious to introduce the Bill as soon as possible, but it will be a long and complicated Measure and I doubt that it would be possible to find Parliamentary time in this Session.

Mr. Albu: As the Government have practically nothing to do till the end of this Parliament, and as this matter has been under consideration in the Department for about three years now, could


not the right hon. Gentleman have a word with his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and get his view, since he had something to do with reporting on this matter when he was a member of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries?

Mr. Erroll: My Department has had a good ration this Session. Two Bills are already Acts. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should address his questions about the allocation of time for the remainder of the Session to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.

Dr. Bray: Is the Minister afraid that the underground storage of gas beneath Winchester might have a harmful effect upon the by-election?

Mr. Erroll: No; we are considering attractive anticlines at Huyton.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Power Stations (Coal Shipments)

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Power what is the current cost of coal shipments to power stations in Great Britain and what are the relative costs per ton between shipments made by Central Electricity Generating Board colliers and other ships.

Mr. Erroll: I am not prepared to answer questions about the confidential day-to-day business of the boards for which I am responsible.

Mr. Milne: Is the Minister aware that the Generating Board is operating very efficiently and effectively in this field? Will he do nothing in future to curtail this trade and will he undertake additionally to look at the question of its expansion?

Mr. Erroll: The future operations of the Board in this field are, of course, a matter for its commercial judgment.

Nuclear Power Consortia

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Power what financial guarantees are being provided for the three nuclear power consortia to enable them to prepare plans and tenders for the nuclear power types envisaged in the White Paper.

Mr. Erroll: This is a commercial matter for the C.E.G.B. and the consortia.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has published a White Paper, and that this Question is designed to try to resolve some of the ambiguity in paragraph 6? Are these tenders and designs to be negotiated? Are the three bodies involved going to take part in the general design? As there is a three-to-one chance of the consortia having their tenders rejected, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to get results from the method suggested in paragraph 6?

Mr. Erroll: The consortia will doubtless have been studying the White Paper. The inquiries for tenders were sent out on 20th April, and I am sure they will consider how they should tender.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we started off with five consortia, and that we are now down to three? One of those has been wound up, and this is the field in which there is the greatest brain drain in the country. When are the Government going to exercise some authority in the matter?

Mr. Erroll: I think it is for the consortia themselves and for their constituent members to decide for themselves the appropriate form of organisation for the submission of tenders for the next stage in the nuclear power programme.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied that the amount of work allocated to the three nuclear power consortia is adequate to maintain the continued existence of these consortia.

Mr. Erroll: The policy of the C.E.G.B. is to award contracts on the basis of competitive tenders. I am satisfied that the new programme is large enough to provide adequate experience and to sustain facilities for rapid expansion in later years.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in paragraph 7 of the White Paper it is proposed by the Government to keep these consortia in being? As one of them is now being wound up, are we to understand from


the right hon. Gentleman's reply that some work is to be given to them in the immediate future, especially if these designs are going to take two years and there will be no development work done during that period?

Mr. Erroll: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. In fact, the inquiry for tenders has gone out and it is for the consortia themselves to decide on their own form of organisation.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the other question? Are these to be negotiated designs and tenders? The right hon. Gentleman has given no answer to that.

Mr. Erroll: They are to be competitive tenders.

Underground Cables

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the Minister of Power what research into the reduction of the cost of underground cables in place of overhead pylons has been settled by his Department with the electricity industry.

Mr. Erroll: Since the reply is a long one, I am writing to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the countryside is being gradually ruined by the extension of these overhead pylons and that this is making a farce of town and country planning? Is he further aware that the public would probably be prepared to pay slightly more for having these cables put underground, and could he say whether the price differential between the two systems is now being gradually reduced?

Mr. Erroll: In reply to the last part of the supplementary question, the price differential is being gradually reduced, but it is still very big. The additional cost of laying underground cables to carry the 400 Kv. supply is really prohibitive in most circumstances. The Central Electricity Generating Board takes immense trouble to ensure that routes for overhead pylons shall not affect amenities, and the public should be grateful to the board for the good work that it does in this respect.

Mr. Allason: Has my right hon. Friend investigated the situation in Ger-

many where I believe they have managed to reduce the financial differential considerably?

Mr. Erroll: I have had reports of what has been done in Germany. These are under examination, but I think that British industry in this field is every bit as good as, if not better than, German industry.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Could my right hon. Friend give some indication of what the ultimate price to the consumer will be by using the underground system? What will be the percentage?

Mr. Erroll: I do not think it is possible to produce an estimate of this sort, because it depends on how much voltage is to be undergrounded and whether the additional charges should be levied on all consumers or only on those who are likely to benefit.

Nuclear Power Programme

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Power whether he will now publish as an appendix to Command Paper No. 2335 a mole detailed summary of the technical and economic arguments used by the Power Committee in its Report on the Future of the Nuclear Power Programme.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Power whether he will publish as an appendix to Command Paper No. 2335, a more detailed explanation of the technical, social and economic arguments used by the Powell Committee in its Report on the Future of the Nuclear Power Programme.

Mr. Erroll: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland) on 21st April.

Mr. Albu: While recognising that there are private and semi-private methods by which Members can obtain information, may I ask whether the Minister does not think that, in an issue as complicated as this, the House of Commons ought to be given some of the economic, statistical and technical information on which this Report was based? Otherwise, how does he think the House can have any reasonable debate about these extremely complicated processes?

Mr. Erroll: I have had very much in mind the desirability of making as much information as possible available to the House of Commons. In looking at the draft of the White Paper I wondered whether any more could usefully be said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I just wanted the House to know that I had this point very much in mind. If I had thought that a longer White Paper would be generally beneficial, it would have been so drafted. The fact is that until tenders are submitted, we will not have the essential information on which to make a comparative study of the different systems. The White Paper announces a stage in the development of the second programme for nuclear energy, and I think we have given the House of Commons all the information that it is possible and useful to give at the present time.

Mr. Dalyell: Did the Powell Committee come to any conclusion on the siting of the fast breeder reactor?

Mr. Erroll: The question of the siting of an individual nuclear station will be a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board which is considering siting questions now and for the future.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who have waited patiently for the White Paper and the Powell Report could not have been more disappointed? The White Paper as we read it could not possibly have given us less information. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he has a duty to give the House of Commons rather more information than has been made available to us so far, so that Members in all quarters of the House may make a more intelligent appreciation of where we are going or where we ought to go in this field of nuclear power generation?

Mr. Erroll: I think that one thing which the White Paper did was to make quite clear where we have not got any information, namely about the comparative economic merits of different systems.
The White Paper goes on to explain that the next stage is to obtain such information from firms which are prepared to submit tenders. Clearly, one could not submit that information on hypothetical figures or guesses. That would
only mislead hon. Members and would not enlighten them.

Mr. Dalyell: Is not the siting of the prototype fast breeder reactor surely a national problem to be in the hands of the Generating Board?

Mr. Erroll: I thought the hon. Gentleman was referring to the siting of reactors in general—

Mr. Dalyell: The fast breeder reactor.

Mr. Erroll: —and was referring in his supplementary to the one at Dounreay. I think it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would put a Question down on the Order Paper.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Power what consultations he had about the second nuclear power programme.

Mr. Erroll: The electricity supply industry and the Atomic Energy Authority were fully consulted and I had the views of the consortia before me.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the White Paper he devotes only one sentence to Scottish interests in the second nuclear power programme? Does he realise that that has created great disappointment in Scotland? Therefore, could he tell us now what is happening or what may happen to the Hunterston "B" project, to which many of us have been looking forward? Secondly, in view of the wonderful success of the experimental nuclear reactor at Dounreay, can we now look forward to the right hon. Gentleman squashing the rumours that the prototype fast reactor may not come to Caithness?

Mr. Erroll: I cannot spend all my time squashing rumours. The statement in the White Paper is quite clear. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman and Scotland are offended by the fact that there is only one sentence about Scotland in the White Paper, but I thought it was a very clear sentence.

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Power on the basis of what ground rules he draws the conclusion that nuclear power is likely to have an economic place in the British electricity system by the early 1970s.

Mr. Erroll: This is a broad assessment accepted by both the electricity supply industry and the A.E.A., and reached after considering a number of studies.

Mr. Lubbock: What use is a broad assessment, bearing in mind the large difference in calculating costs which arises from taking different ground rules? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difference of opinion which has existed for some time between the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board on this matter? How can one possibly make such a judgment unless one first decides what the ground rules should be?

Mr. Erroll: Inevitably, there was a good deal of discussion on how to make such an assessment. Indeed, this was part of the work of the Powell Committee. But the heads of both the C.E.G.B. and the A.E.A. have stated publicly that they agree with the findings of the White Paper, and I think, therefore, that it is a fair inference that they agree on what the hon. Gentleman chooses to call ground rules.

Mr. Lubbock: Could the right hon. Gentleman answer just one question on this ground rule: will the depreciation period of the advanced gas-cooled reactor he 20 or 30 years?

Mr. Erroll: The rates of depreciation and return on capital were, of course, two of what the hon. Gentleman calls ground rules which were taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Gas and Electricity Meters (Money)

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Minister of Power, in view of the new evidence sent to him by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, regarding the problem of compensation for money stolen from gas and electricity meters, what further consideration he has given to taking action to enable consumers to be relieved of the responsibility for such losses.

Mr. Peyton: I have asked the boards concerned to examine these cases and I will write to the hon. Member about them but my right hon. Friend is still

convinced that this should remain a matter within the discretion of the boards.

Mr. Yates: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise from the memorandum which I submitted that a very large number of widows and old-age pensioners have, had their meters robbed and that this is not their responsibility? Why should they be presented with bills which are far' beyond their capacity to pay? Could not the hon. Gentleman ask the boards to exercise more reasonable discretion in a matter of this kind?

Mr. Peyton: This matter was gone into fairly fully recently and I tried to make clear then that a considerable burden would be placed on the boards if the preset position was changed. I believe that the boards take a sympathetic view in cases of hardship, but it would be wrong for my right hon. Friend to give them a direction on this subject.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the boards endeavour and often succeed in getting the best of both worlds in these matters? When the money is in the meter they regard it as their money and sometimes bring prosecutions for theft against the householder. When the money is lost they regard the money as belonging to the householder so that the householder becomes responsible for the loss. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not the way in which a powerful statutory authority should treat helpless individuals?

Mr. Peyton: No, Sir. The boards always regard the money in meters as belonging to them. The point is that the occupier of the house is responsible for the safe custody of the money.

Mr. Hocking: Is my hon. Friend aware that many local authorities arrange for meters to be placed outside the property and that there have been a number of cases of theft from such meters? If the boards cannot be elastic in these matters, could my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to persuade local authorities to have these meters installed in places of safety?

Mr. Peyton: I will certainly look at that point.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great lack of uniformity among different boards in the way in which they treat these unfortunate householders whose meters are broken into? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing concern about the widespread hardship that is suffered by householders whose meters are broken into? Will he undertake to have this matter fully examined to see whether there is some solution which can be offered centrally by his Ministry?

Mr. Peyton: I could not accept that there is lack of sympathy by the boards and it would be wrong for my right hon. Friend to seek to dictate to them how they should act in this matter. They are much nearer, being local boards, to the circumstances of these cases and the matter must be left to their discretion.

Shipbuilding (Steel Prices)

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Power if, in view of the proposed reduction in the price of coking coal for the steel industry, he will now direct the Iron and Steel Board to reconsider the maximum prices chargeable for heavy steel used in the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Erroll: No, Sir. When the date of the forthcoming coal price reduction has been settled by the National Coal Board, the Iron and Steel Board will take account of this and of any other changes in costs, in keeping maximum steel prices under review.

Mr. Bence: In view of the fact that, from time to time, the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends countenance the passing on of increased costs in increased prices, will he now, being responsible for pricing in the steel industry, give a general direction to the Iron and Steel Board that the economies brought about by the Coal Board's reduction of the price of coking coal by 2s. 6d. a ton will be passed on to consumers, particularly the shipbuilding industry which is now paying much more for its steel than Continental shipbuilders?

Mr. Erroll: Maximum prices are a matter for the Iron and Steel Board, and I cannot consider using my powers to require the Board to vary maximum prices until the Board has been able to make its own decisions.

Coal, Oil, Electricity, Gas and Steel (Prices)

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Power if he will state the percentage increase since 1951 in the price of coal, oil, electricity, gas and steel, respectively.

Mr. Erroll: In the most recent 12 year period for which figures are available the average pithead proceeds per ton of coal have increased by about 92 per cent.; the published price of minimum bulk load of medium fuel oil, by about 43 per cent.; the published price of minimum bulk load of domestic paraffin (premier grade) by about 38 per cent.; the average revenue per unit of electricity by about 33 per cent.; the average revenue per them of gas, by about 74 per cent.; and the published wholesale price index of iron and steel by about 67 per cent.

Mr. Lawson: Is it not remarkable how well the electricity industry has done in these circumstances? Is it not an example to the electricity industries in virtually all the countries of the world? Will the Minister, who is responsible or answerable to this House for the electricity industry, now rise and tell us how well this nationalised industry has done?

Mr. Erroll: I am glad to rise and say how well British technicians and engineers, particularly, in the manufacturing industries have reduced the costs of generation by designing modern large-scale plant which was not dreamt of 10 years ago.

Dame Irene Ward: Is my recollection correct that one of the ideas of nationalisation was to reduce costs to the consumer? What has happened to this idea?

Mr. Erroll: If my hon. Friend will study the figures, she will see that costs have risen a good deal; but there is some variation.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY, TRADE AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Insurance

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development (1) whether he


is aware that discriminatory practices exist among some insurance companies against non-European and other minority groups; and whether, in order to ensure that all insured persons pay premiums based upon genuine commercial risk and actuarial assessments, he will seek to amend the Insurance Act, 1958, so as to provide that no insurance company may conduct business if it refuses insurance cover or requires extra premiums solely because of the race of a party seeking to be insured;
(2) Whether he is aware that immigrants, non-European people, and persons whose parents were born abroad are encountering difficulties in obtaining motor insurance cover at reasonable rates; and whether, with a view to introducing legislation to relieve hardship, he will conduct an inquiry into the underwriting practices of insurance companies relating to such minority groups.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): My right hon. Friend has made inquiries and is assured that all premiums are fixed on the basis of genuine commercial risk and, where appropriate, actuarial assessment. In these circumstances, he does not propose to amend the Insurance Companies Act or to conduct an inquiry.

Mr. Abse: In the course of these inquiries, has the hon. Gentleman seen private and confidential circulars which have been distributed to branch managers throughout the country by some of the leading insurance companies? Is he aware that within those circulars there are instructions to branch managers that they must do everything that they possibly can not to take premiums from coloured people, or, as they describe them, Asiatics or immigrants, and that if they are forced to take them they must be heavily weighted and must exclude certain risks? Is it not clear that there are, unfortunately, extreme prejudices ranging within the insurance world which can act with severe detriment to the whole community? Will the hon. Gentleman have another look at this matter again if I give him some evidence on it?

Mr. Price: I shall be happy to look at any evidence which the hon. Member cares to let me have. However, he is not being strictly fair to insurance

companies. If they find actuarially that there is a far higher accident rate among certain types of citizen rather than others, it is not unreasonable that they charge a higher premium, as one found when, as a student, one tried to get one's car insured.

Market Towns

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development whether, in his regional studies, special consideration will be given to so called market towns, many of which have lost or are losing their markets and other economic activities on which they depended, in some cases the barracks of the county regiment, owing to amalgamations; and what plan, he has to re-establish the prosperity of these towns.

The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, sir. As I explained in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Sir J. Maitland) on 12th March, the prosperity of these towns depends on the economic circumstances of the areas surrounding them and plans for their future development will be considered in that context.

Mr. Digby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Report on the South-East is very disappointing in this respect? Will he endeavour to ensure that the other reports pay more attention to this problem and less to the spread of suburbia, or whatever one cares to call it?

Mr. Health: The Report on the South-East was concerned, in particular, with the great growth in population and the problems of London. But the Joint Committee on the economy of the South-West is considering the scope of the studies, in economic development which it wishes to carry out and which we have offered to support.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at


Barnet on Saturday, 14th March, on economic matters represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): My right hon. Friend made no speech on economic matters on Saturday, 14th March.

Mr. Wyatt: Evidently The Times thought that he had because it published a report on it. I am very sorry that the Prime Minister has been misinformed about the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because is he aware that in that speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
We let other countries chase ahead of us and we do not face up to the iron hard competition of the modern world of industry and commerce.
As the right hon. Gentleman's party has been in power for 12½ years, would he care to explain whose fault that is?

The Prime Minister: It is the hon. Member's fault for not reading the date right on The Times.

Oral Answers to Questions — FEDERATION OF SOUTH ARABIA

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Southern Arabia.

The Prime Minister: I assume the hon. Member refers to the Federation of South Arabia.
The policy of Her Majesty's Government is to lead the people of the Federation as soon as practicable to sovereign independence.

Mr. Healey: In view of the fact that Britain's retention of the British military base in Aden is bound to depend on the good will of those who live and work there, would the Prime Minister consider revising the constitution of the South Arabian Federation so as to make it acceptable to the population of Aden Colony?

The Prime Minister: If any alteration is needed in the constitution, it is really for the Federal Ministers and the Ministers in the State of Aden Government to advise Her Majesty's Government to that effect. If they wish to do so, no doubt they will.

Mr. Healey: But is it not the responsibility of the British Government, who are still in a controlling position, to ensure that the constitution does not continue against the will of the inhabitants of Aden Colony who are our direct responsibility as the protecting Power?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Member knows that the question of what exact form the constitution should take is a very difficult one and that we have to treat these matters with great care. But, as I said, if the Government of the State of Aden or the Federal Ministers, or both—they have to act together—think that some changes are necessary, we are always willing to meet them and to discuss them.

Mr. P. Williams: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there are wider considerations than internal politics and that one of the things for which Britain has responsibility is to ensure that the right Royalist régime is restored to office in the Yemen and that we give assistance and succour to our friends in Saudi Arabia as well?

The Prime Minister: That raises a wider question. The Question on the Order Paper was about the internal situation in Aden.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AFRICA (POLITICAL TRIAL)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister whether he will approach the Prime Ministers of all governments in the Commonwealth with a view to a collective Commonwealth approach being made to the Government of South Africa to abandon the political trial now taking place of opponents of apartheid, as requested in the resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly on 11th October, 1963.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady will be aware from the reply given her on 13th April by my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the South African Government are fully aware of the strength of public opinion in this country. Other Commonwealth Governments will themselves decide what action they wish to take on the resolution. If they wish us to represent their


point of view to the South African Government no doubt they will ask us to do so.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that the Indian Government have just approached Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States and urged them to use their influence with the South African Government to stop these trials? Is it not also a fact that the representations so far made to South Africa by Her Majesty's Government have been halfhearted and unconvincing? Would it not greatly strengthen the Commonwealth if the right hon. Gentleman were to give a lead in getting concerted Commonwealth action on this matter, and will he raise it at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady has no reason for her assumptions about any representations which we have made to the South African Government. She might remember that judgment has not yet been delivered in this trial and that it would not be appropriate to anticipate it.

Mr. Longden: While most earnestly hoping that the Republic of South Africa will finally abandon these political trials, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he knows whether the United Nations have at any time given any indication of wishing to "intervene in matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of the Republic"—say—"of Ghana"?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I have no such knowledge.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the Prime Minister accept that the holding of these trials, whether an internal matter or not, is an affront to the whole world civilisation? He should accept that because he made protests to the South African Government against the fact that these trials are being held, whatever their conclusion, but would not the protests made by the Government, which the right hon. Gentleman says have been made in tough terms—or so he implied—be greatly strengthened if the Government ceased to maintain their present equivocal attitude on the subject of an arms embargo to South Africa?

The Prime Minister: In answering Questions in the House on matters of this kind I have to remember that the lives of men are at stake here, and therefore I have to he very careful that in my arguments I do nothing and say nothing which might make this case more difficult. Answering the last part of the question about arms to South Africa, the right hon. Gentleman has for some time liked to describe our attitude as equivocal. In fact it is perfectly plain: we provide arms for South Africa under the Simonstown Agreement but we do not provide them for use inside South Africa in any cases in which they could be used to further the policy of apartheid. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to get up and say that he would scrap the Simonstown Agreement, then we stick to our policy.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is it not a fact that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—is it not a fact, first, that the statement now made by he Prime Minister is totally different from what all his Ministers were saying? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am justifying the word "equivoca" and I will deal with the Simonstown Agreement in a moment. Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman's statement is opposite to what his Ministers were saying for many months until last summer, for they said that they would have no control over arms?

The Prime Minister: indicated dissent.

Mr. Wilson: Certainly they said that. Secondly, when he denies that it is equivocal, will he say whether his policy in his matter conforms to United Nations resolutions and is the same as that which is carried out by the United States, France and Germany? Thirdly, on Simonstown, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole of the schedule to the Simonstown Agreement in respect of shipments made under that agreement was due to end on 31st December, 1963?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman shows every sign of losing his head on this matter. He has made what I do not imagine he means to be a deliberate mis-statement. All the Ministers n the Government have said, and I have said dozens of times to the


right hon. Gentleman across the Floor, that we have an export system of licensing arms to South Africa and that we use that system in order to see to it that the arms which we export to South Africa are not applied to further the policy of apartheid. In their export policies to South Africa, the United States and other countries concerned have no agreement corresponding to the Simonstown Agreement.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is difficult. I forget when last it was that the House resolved to help Mr. Speaker in the business of supplementary questions. I do not want to get in the way, but we do not get enough Questions answered.

Mr. H. Wilson: On a point of order. Would it not save the time of the House and help Mr. Speaker better if the Prime Minister answered the Question which I just put to him?

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the anxiety to help me, but I have difficulty in making it into a point of order. Mr. Swingler.

Mr. Swingler: Question No. 4.

The Prime Minister: I cannot answer for—

Mr. H. Wilson: Answer my question.

The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will collaborate. I am trying to answer a Question by one of his colleagues, but the right hon. Gentleman will not let me.

Sir H. Butcher: On a point or order. May I ask whether it is in order for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition persistently to mutter from a seated position?

Mr. Speaker: What I should like is for the House to enable me to get some Questions answered. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) could hear the Prime Minister answering the Question, but I confess that I had some difficulty. The Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANIES (CONTRIBUTIONS TO PARTY POLITICAL FUNDS)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister if he will ask all Ministers to report to him on the extent to which companies in which their Departments have, or are responsible for, shareholdings are known by them to be contributing to party political funds; and if he will arrange for the publication of a statement on the subject.

The Prime Minister: I cannot answer for the parties opposite. But no companies in which shares are held directly and in an official capacity by either Ministers or Government servants are making contributions to the funds of my party.
In addition to direct holdings, stocks of a wide range of companies are held by Ministers or officials as trustees. It would not be appropriate for a trustee to examine the political activities of companies in which trust funds were invested.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Prime Minister saying that he can categorically deny that where there is any public money invested in companies for which Ministers are responsible to the House any contributions are being made by those companies to party political funds? Secondly, is the Prime Minister saying that it is desirable that when Ministers have a responsibility for trust funds invested in firms such as that recently mentioned, Allied Iron Founders Ltd.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—in view of the noise from the other side of the House, no complaint can be made to me about delay at Question Time. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is saying that it is desirable that, while Ministers are responsible for trust funds in public companies, those companies should make contributions to Conservative Party funds?

The Prime Minister: Answering the last part of the supplementary question, I am not suggesting that those companies in which the Government hold shares are not subscribing to a political party. I am saying that they are not. That is a straight answer to the hon. Member's Question. No shares are held directly in


those companies which do contribute. As for the second part of the question, it is not the business of a trustee, whether he is a Minister or not, to look into what boards of directors do with their funds.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister saying that it is not the business of a trustee to find out to what use the profits of a company are being put in which he has a large shareholding?

The Prime Minister: In many cases a Minister is a trustee, let us say, for Oxford or Cambridge colleges or technical colleges or something of this sort. [Interruption.] They are, and this has always happened. They are responsible for seeing that the investment is safe and secure.

Mr. Jay: Suppose the company were paying out funds to political parties at the expense of the shareholders, would not that be the business of the trustees?

The Prime Minister: The function of a trustee is surely to see that in all the circumstances the money for which he is responsible, and which he has invested on behalf of the college or whatever it may be, is secure and safe.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (SPEECH)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Secretary of State for Scotland, at Aberdeen on Tuesday, 14th April, on slum clearance in Scotland, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Prime Minister aware that, at Aberdeen, the Secretary of State for Scotland promised on behalf of the Government that he would wipe out slums in Scotland in 10 years, with the exception of those in the City of Glasgow? Why did he make an exception in the case of Glasgow? Is it because he will take longer to do the job in Glasgow or is he to do it in less than 10 years? If that be the case, will the Prime Minister keep in mind that the only thing that Tory Governments of the past 12 years have done in relation to slumdom in Glasgow is to leave

us with 100,000 slum houses today? Are the Government going to wipe them out in 10 years?

The Prime Minister: What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said was that the present rate of rehousing will clear all the slums in Scotland except possibly those in Glasgow in the next 10 years or so. When the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr Rankin) says that we have done nothing, I would remind him that we have built over 375,000 houses in Scotland in the last 12 years and that 34,000 to 40,000 will be built this year. The problem of clearing the slums in a big city is much more difficult than in any other place. That is why it takes longer.

Mr. Rankin: As the Secretary of State for Scotland has committed the Government to a plan to abolish slums in Scotland, will the Prime Minister tell us what time it will take to wipe out the slums that now exist in Glasgow?

The Prime Minister: The Secretary of State gave the best indication that he could when he said that we aim to do it in 10 years, but it may take longer, of course.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Since this is St. George's Day, may I ask the Prime Minister whether perhaps Glasgow might not get on better if it changed the hon. Member for Govan?

Mr. Speaker: The answer involves no introduction of the dragon. I think that we had better proceed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 27TH APRIL—Consideration of Private Members' Motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, debate on an Opposition Motion on the Draft Order in Council on the British Guiana Constitution.
TUESDAY, 28TH APRIL—Supply [14th Allotted Day]: Committee.
A debate on Maritime Nuclear Propulsion.
As the House is aware, the Chairman of Ways and Means has set down opposed Private Business for consideration at seven o'clock.
Motions on the Price Stability of Imported Products Orders.
WEDNESDAY, 29TH APRIL—Debate on a Government Motion on the Second Report from the Public Accounts Committee, Session 1963–64, on Guided Weapons Contracts, House of Commons Paper No. 183.
If, as hoped, the Committee stage of the Resale Prices Bill is disposed of today, then the business on THURSDAY, 30TH APRIL, will be Second Reading of the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Bill, and of the Perpetuities and Accumulations Bill [Lords].
If there is time, the remaining stages of the Criminal Appeal Bill [Lords], and the Administration of Justice Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY, 1ST MAY—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 4TH MAY—The proposed business will be: Supply [15th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on the South-East Study and the White Paper on South-East England (Command No. 2308).

Mr. H. Wilson: While a debate on perpetuities and accumulations will be highly appropriate in present circumstances, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that in the debate on Wednesday, on the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, it is the intention of the Opposition to table an Amendment to the Government's Motion—whatever it is—of a censorious character on the failure of the Government to protect the taxpayer in this matter?
Further, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman prepared to provide facilities at an early date for a debate, which I am sure that the whole House will want to have, on the question of Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Lloyd: I have taken note of what the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his supplementary ques-

tion and I will also take note of the second part.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed the Motion on the Order Paper concerning the pay of pharmacists, which has been signed by over two dozen Conservative Members?
[That this House urges the Minister of Health in his current review of remuneration to pharmacists for National Health Service dispensing, in providing for a fair intrinsic profit element, to include adequate provision to cover all overhead expenses of the services rendered so as to obviate the need for pharmacists to have to sell other non-pharmaceutical goods to subsist.]
As the Government have now generously acceded to the terms of the Motion, will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the fact that we shall not now require to debate the matter?
Secondly, in view of talk recently about the political courage needed for by-elections, can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether a Writ has been issued for the Scotland Division of Liverpool? If not, will the Opposition pluck up courage to do so?

Mr. Lloyd: The type of question suggesting that a matter need not be debated is most welcome.
As I have previously said, it is not wise to forecast or prophesy whether or not particular Writs are to be issued.

Mr. G. Thomas: In view of the mounting evidence of renewed pressure by ground landlords on leaseholds in South Wales, and as it is a very long time since the House discussed the leasehold problem, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether we are to have an opportunity between now and July to discuss this question?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman raised this matter last week, when I suggested that he and I might have a talk about it. I am very disappointed that he has not contacted me about it.

Mr. Thomas: With great respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that was another question, but I will be very pleased to see him if there is any chance of a debate on leasehold. I will see him after business questions have finished.

Mr. Lloyd: I am always delighted to see the hon. Gentleman, but his question today sounded very like the question he put last week.

Mr. J. Morris: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen the Motion on the Notice Paper inviting the steel companies who are now indulging in an anti-public ownership advertising spending spree to publicise the views of the Prime Minister on that part of the industry still remaining under public ownership—Richard Thomas and Baldwins—and his confidence in its record to date? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman arrange a debate on current political advertising, which is making a mockery of the Representation of the People Act?

[That this House, noting that the publicly-owned coal industry is shortly to assist both the privately- and publicly-owned sectors of the steel industry by reducing the price of coking coal by 2s. 6d. per ton and the congratulatory terms of that part of the Chancellor's Budget speech announcing this saying that it was encouraging that the National Coal Board was able to make this reduction and that it was a useful contribution towards keeping industrial costs competitive and provided a foundation upon which to work, and also noting that the Prime Minister in answer to a question on 24th March, 1964, confirmed that he had confidence both in the management and efficiency to date of that part of the steel industry which still remains in public ownership, namely Richard Thomas and Baldwin's, invites the British Iron and Steel Federation, the Steel Company of Wales, Dorman Long's, Stewart and Lloyd's and other organisations indulging in anti-nationalisation advertising to devote one-tenth of their expenditure to publicising the above views of Her Majesty's Government on the success of industries in public ownership.]

Mr. Lloyd: I think that a debate on the whole question of nationalisation might be very timely.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether it in intended to publish the Report of the Study Group under the chairmanship of Sir Thomas Padmore and, possibly, lay a White Paper before next Tuesday's de-

bate on marine nuclear propulsion? I understand that the Report is ready.

Mr. Lloyd: I think that a White Paper was laid on 15th April and that it explains that more information is needed for a decision on the type of reactor to be built, But I do not think that that will be a matter for Tuesday's debate, which will relate to marine propulsion.

Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, while we considered putting the two subjects together for the one debate, we thought it right to confine it to maritime propulsion, as the debate is to cover only half a day? However, since there is a general desire in the House for a debate on power generation and the atomic reactor programme, do the Government intend to provide time to debate any White Paper on the subject that we would like to discuss?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that there is a desire in the House for a debate on this matter, and it is certainly one of the possibilities that. I shall take into account.

Mr. Ross: Is it the Government's intention at an early date to give us an opportunity of discussing the Kilbrandon Report, which was referred to by the Prime Minister as a fruitful equivalent of a Royal Commission on Scotland?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly not next week, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said.

Sir G. Nicholson: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that a large section of opinion in the House and throughout the country views with regret the prospect of a debate on Southern Rhodesia when the situation there is exceedingly delicate and that, however good people's intentions may be it might cause a great deal of harm?

Mr. Popplewell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the Motion on the Order Paper in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) and many other hon. Members?
[That this House deplores the refusal of the Minister of Transport to allow British Railways to tender for the manufacture of wagons and containers for private rail users which has thus prevented free competition between the


public and private sectors of the railway manufacturing industry.]
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the general dissatisfaction expressed yesterday by the Trades Union Congress about the refusal of the Minister to grant this permission? In view of the importance of the matter for the general well-being of the services concerned, will he arrange for a debate on this Motion, if not next week at an early date?

Mr. Lloyd: If there is the dissatisfaction which the hon. Member suggests there are plenty of opportunities within our ordinary procedure for the matter to be debated.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. and learned Friend return to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke)? Is it not a fact that the Minister of Transport has promised to announce the name of the reactor to be chosen for maritime nuclear propulsion? Are we to have information about the choice of the reactor before we have the debate next week, so that we may really be able to discuss the matter with some knowledge of what we may be looking to for the future? I want that reactor to be named, if possible.

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that this is a matter for me, but I take note of what my hon. Friend has said and I will certainly convey it to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Mr. Grimond: Arising out of that question, I understand that the debate is to be confined to nuclear propulsion. If so, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman throw any light on the question when we may receive the decision of the Atomic Energy Commission about the siting of a fast reactor? There are Questions about this on the Order Paper today, one of which gives the impression that the Government might have had a hand in it. Does that mean that the decision is about to be taken? If so, will we have it by the time the matter is debated?

Mr. Lloyd: This subject has been chosen by the Opposition, and the form of the debate has not yet been precisely determined. It is a question whether

certain Estimates are put down or not. I cannot add to what has been said on the matter.

Mr. McMaster: In view of the adverse trend in the unemployment figures for Northern Ireland, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider fixing an early date for a debate on Northern Ireland?

Mr. Lloyd: I am aware of my hon. Friend's request and I hope to be able to meet it.

Mr. Oram: In view of the important development this week of a monopoly in the electric lighting industry through the merger of A.E.I. and Thorne's, will the Leader of the House give much more urgent consideration to the question of a debate on the White Paper?

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot hold out any prospect for next week.

Mr. Berkeley: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether the Government will find time for a debate on the Plowden Report?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly not next week.

Mr. Rankin: The Leader of the House seemed rather reticent last Thursday when I asked about the Whitsun Recess. Is it a fact that this year there will be no Whitsun Recess, due to the pressure of Government business on the time of the House?

Mr. Lloyd: There is a great deal of pressure on the time of the House, as is quite apparent from the nature of the questions asked today, and the topics suggested for debate. Many important matters are awaiting debate. However, I will not be completely negative today. I think there is a possibility that there may be a Whitsuntide Recess.

Mr. W. Hamilton: Will the Leader of the House give serious consideration to his own suggestion that there should be a full day's debate on the nationalised industries, so that, among other things, we may compare the reduction in prices announced by the National Coal Board with the activities of Ferranti's?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member refers to this as having been my suggestion; I was only trying to be helpful, in answer to a question that was put to me.

Mr. Albu: May I press the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the suggestion made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke)—in view of the obvious misunderstanding and confusion on the part of the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward)—that the Minister of Transport should publish a White Paper containing the proposals of the Padmore Committee so that the House can at least be informed of the considerations upon which we debate the matter?

Mr. Lloyd: I have said that I shall take note of that point.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether, next week, there will be an announcement about a further exchange of prisoners? Is he aware that there is a demand from his back benches that the Prime Minister should be exchanged for Mr. Khrushchev?

Mr. Lloyd: I was in the House last week when there was some discussion about Mr. Khrushchev's political views in relation to the domestic situation of this country, but this is not really a matter for me.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Bowles: On a point of order. As I mentioned to you this morning, Mr. Speaker, I handed in a Question yesterday as follows:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, now that Gordon Lonsdale has been

released, what is to be the future of the other persons sentenced to prison at the same time.
In today's 'Notices of Questions I see that Question No. 103 reads:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the fact that Gordon Lonsdale has been released, what negotiations he has had with the Soviet Government regarding the future of the other persons who were sentenced to prison at the same time.
Since the Foreign Secretary had arranged the, release of Lonsdale and Wynne, I thought that my Question should be addressed to him. This serious alteration, made in the Table Office, which is always so helpful to all of us—I want to emphasise that—makes nonsense, in suggesting that the Foreign Secretary might have had negotiations with the Soviet Government about people in British gaols who are not Russians. I just wanted to know what was likely to happen to the others now that the apparent ringleader is out. I am grateful to you 'or allowing me to put this question this afternoon. I shall make the necessary alteration later today.

Mr. Speaker: The House will be grateful to the hon. Member, as I am, for what he has said about the splendid service that we get from our Officers. I have written to the hon. Member about the Question. There is a genuine misunderstanding here about what the hon. Member's wishes were. I have taken steps to see that the right correction is made so that the Question will go down precisely in the words that the hon. Member wished.

Mr. Bowles: I am very grateful indeed, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day — RESALE PRICES BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 22nd April].

[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

Clause 5.—(POWER OF COURT TO EXEMPT CLASSES OF GOODS.)

3.49 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I beg to move Amendment No. 95, in page 5, line 20, at the end to insert:
(d) there would be serious damage to the livelihood of large numbers of self-employed retailers and distributive workers without any comparable gain to the public as consumers and users.

The Deputy-Chairman: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 103, in page 5, line 25, with a Division on the latter Amendment later, if the hon. Lady wishes.

Mrs. Castle: Yes, Sir Robert.
The purpose of the Amendment is to add another gateway to the Clause in addition to all the others that we have spent so much time discussing during the course of the proceedings on the Bill. The Amendment would enable the Restrictive Practices Court, in deciding whether to exempt any goods from the abolition of resale price maintenance, to take into account the ensuing damage to the self-employed retailer and to distributive workers. This is a very important Amendment, because this is the first point in the Bill at which the question of the future of those two groups, which are vitally affected by r.p.m., is directly taken into account.
As the Bill is drafted, any benefit accruing to the consumer, however small, would outweigh any detriment to the retailer or distributive worker, however large. Of course, during the debates on the Bill the Committee has been anxious to promote the interests of the consumer. That certainly is the attitude of hon. Members on this side. We are anxious that the consumer should reap the advantage of any legitimate economies in distribution. On the other hand, we do not believe that the interests of the consumer should be interpreted so sweepingly as to override any other consideration whatsoever.
We should not, therefore, be in favour of a price-cutting war which would rain large numbers of small retailers, or undermine the living standards of the workers in the distributive trades. That would be to apply economic criteria to the point of lunacy. Clearly, it would not be in the public interest as a whole if the abolition of r.p.m. were to be carried through in circumstances and to an extent which would lead to the bankruptcy of large numbers of self-employed small retailers who would have little opportunity to find alternative employment or of being reabsorbed into the economy in a productive way. They might face the propspect of ending their days in receipt of National Assistance. Clearly, that would not add to the economic well-being of the community as a whole and, therefore, would not be a legitimate interpretation of the public interest.
The point of view of the distributive workers was put effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) during the Second Reading debate. My hon. Friend would have been present to move this Amendment. Unfortunately, he has to attend a conference of his union and, therefore, is unable to be with us.

Mr. Graham Page: What about his duty to this Committee?

Mrs. Castle: Does the hon. Member wish to say something?

Mr. Graham Page: I was suggesting to the hon. Lady that perhaps her hon. Friend's duty to this Committee should be put before his duty to his union.

Mrs. Castle: I think that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) might search his own conscience and decide whether or not he is living in a glasshouse before he starts to throw stones.
My hon. Friend, who was speaking as President of the Union of Shop and Distributive Allied Workers, was able, on Second Reading, to put the point of view of the distributive workers. Obviously, he would be anxious to be present and speak in support of this Amendment. During that debate he said:
I accept that the public, as consumers and users, must have the paramount interest in such a Bill as this. But, as it is drafted at


present, there could he a situation where 100,000 self-employed retailers and distributive workers could have an income reduction of £3 or £4 a week, and if one single consumer got ½d. benefit that ½d. benefit to the one consumer would outweigh the loss to the 100,000 retailers and distributive workers. That is the public interest as at present defined in the Bill. I am prepared to accept the paramount interest of the public as consumers and users. But suerly there must be some qualification of the public interest so that there must be a comparable advantage to the public as a whole to offset what could be a drastic loss to an important section."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1964, Vol. 691, c. 297.]
I am sure that the Committee will accept that as a very reasonable statement of the position.
By this Amendment we seek to give to the distributive workers and to the small retailers a locus standi under the Bill. In other words, their needs should be one of the factors in the situation which the Court must take into account when weighing one claim against another. Unless they are given this locus standi under the Bill there will be a possibility that they will not be able to have their case put to the Court at all.
Later, some hon. Members on this side of the Committee will be moving an Amendment to give these groups the right to appear before the Court; and I hope that the Committee will accept the Amendment. If it is accepted, a corollary of it will be that in having the right to appear they should also have the right, under the gateway Clause of the Bill to state their point of view. That is the whole purpose of wanting to appear, to put an argument on their own behalf. At this stage, we are saying that such an argument should be one of the factors legitimately to be taken into account. The same applies in respect of the small retailer. We can all think of points of view which they might wish to put.
The other day I was approached by some licensed victuallers in my constituency who are tenants of their public houses. They were profoundly concerned about the effect on their livelihood of the abolition of resale price maintenance. They told me that already there were cases in which multiple firms were using wines, spirits and beers as—well, I do not know whether they were

being used as loss leaders, but, certainly, the multiple shops were able to sell wines and proprietary brands of spirits and beers at prices lower than those at which the licensed victuallers could obtain the same sort of goods from the brewers. Clearly, if r.p.m. were abolished, the effect for those local publicans could be disastrous.
That is the sort of argument which ought to be heard by the Court and taken into consideration. I was asked by the licensed victuallers to probe the mystery of the astonishing price levels at which some multiples were able to sell these products. It seemed to be more than a case of discount being given on bulk supplies because, presumably, the brewers could buy in bulk for distribution to their tenants. It may be that the answer lies in the policy of the brewers. That may be the fault. But if the retailer had the right to go to the Court and the right under the gateways Clause to put his side of the case, the very publicity that ensued might bring the truth to light and produce a more equitable policy.
I repeat that the point is at this stage to give these two groups the right to have their point of view considered by the Court. I am sure that this is an Amendment which is self-evidently fair, and I am confident that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: Although I interrupted she hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) just now, I support her on this Amendment. This is a case which I was trying to put on Amendment No. 71 yesterday as part of the argument in favour of that Amendment, that the interests of those who are employed in the distributive, trade, whether as principals or as employees, should be something which the Court can take into account.
I prefer the hon. Lady's Amendment to my rather wider one, because she pinpoints the small retailer. It is the small retailer and also the shop assistant, because of his employment, who will be hit first by the Bill. They will be immediately hit. They may well recover from it, but I am sure that the Court ought to be allowed to take their interests into account. I can see
no reason why the Court should be precluded from that consideration.
Before the Court decides to make an order because it appears to it that the situation described in the hon. Lady's Amendment exists, there are two further things for it to consider. The hon. Lady wants to introduce a gateway into subsection (2). But there are still two gates to open before one can pass through that gateway. There is the gate which she puts in her Amendment:
without any comparable gain to the public as consumers and users.
Therefore, the Court would have to consider, as against the interests of the small retailer and his employees, the comparable gain of the public as consumers and users. There would also be the other gate to open in the tailpiece of subsection (2)—again, the interests of the public as consumers or users. So the public are well protected here.
The point is merely that the Court should be permitted to consider the very vital interests of the retailer and the employee. I should lke to see this as another gateway. I should, at least, like to be sure that the Bill does not itself preclude the Court from giving full consideration to these interests.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I support the Amendment. I want, first, to take up the point made in an interjection by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) is very sorry indeed that he cannot be here today. He is attending an international conference, and I imagine that it is of the greatest importance that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee should play some part these days in international matters.

Mr. Graham Page: I am happy to withdraw the interjection, which I made rather too hastily.

Miss Herbison: I am very glad indeed. It is most generous of the hon. Member.
I am also very glad that we have support from the Government side of the committee for the Amendment. Clause 5(2)—it is important to read this far—says:

An order under this section directing that goods of any class shall be exempted goods may be made by the Restrictive Practices Court if it appears to the Court that in default of a system of maintained minimum resale prices applicable to those goods…
and then we are given three gateways.
The hon. Member for Crosby was right to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that in the other gateways the right of the consumers is very greatly safeguarded, and that before any class of goods is exempted it will have to get over those two hurdles before the fourth gateway that we are asking for is considered.
I am sure that the Minister must be very well aware of the great fears of many small shopkeepers about what the Bill will do to their livelihood. They are very hardworking people. I have some of them in every village in my constituency. They have no regulated hours of work indeed, very often they work many more hours than those who are employed. It is of the greatest importance that we should do everything possible to safeguard their interests.
At this stage, when the Bill has been discussed for many days, I find that the shopkeepers not only have grave fears, but are very indignant with the Government. They seem to agree with what The Times has said, that so far the Minister has made no real concession in the Bill to any point of view. The Times was commenting on the meeting which the right hon. Gentleman had with his back benchers. We have been discussing the Bill for such a long time, and in the light of the discussions and the strong case which has been made time and time again from both sides of the Committee, no real concession has yet been made, and it seems strange that, although no real concession has been made, the Minister has by some means or another managed to quell what was very great opposition on his own side.

Mr. Graham Page: Is the hon. Lady right in talking about "concessions"? My right hon. Friend has improved the Bill very considerably as we have gone along, perhaps with some advice from the back benches. But surely we cannot refer to "concessions".

Miss Herbison: I do not think that it really matters which word we use, but


I will adopt the word "improvement". Most of us do not accept that any real improvements have been made to the Bill so far.

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but I think that the discussion had better be brought back to the Amendment.

Miss Herbison: With all due deference, Sir Robert, I do not think I have strayed from the Amendment. I am dealing with the position of the small shopkeepers and telling the Minister their feelings and pointing out that so far any concessions or improvements which had been made in the Bill are not worth very much and have certainly gone no way to alleviate the fears of the small shopkeepers.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps the hon. Lady will relate her remarks to the small shopkeepers. We must not get into a general discussion about concessions which have been made in other parts of the Bill.

Miss Herbison: I accept your Ruling, Sir Robert. Whatever I say, I shall certainly attempt, as I have been doing—perhaps not very successfully—to relate it to the small shopkeepers.
Under the Bill, the supplier of goods, or the trade association representing him, may make representations to the Registrar to have certain goods considered by the Restrictive Practices Court. I agree with that procedure. What we would like to see is the small shopkeeper and those representing the workers given the same right. This is important for the livelihood of both the workers and the small shopkeepers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has dealt with this issue fully and I need not spend more time on it today. It is desirable as a matter of justice that both the workers and the small shopkeepers should be able themselves to make representations to the Registrar to have certain goods considered by the Court. If the position of the small shopkeeper were safeguarded, in many instances that would safeguard the consumer.
Small shopkeepers in my constituency fear that if this or a similar Amendment is not accepted many of them will have to go out of business. They fear that

it will not be possible for them to compete at the beginning with the big multiple stores which have a great deal of capital. In spite of the provisions about loss leaders, and so on, there would still be a danger that the big multiple stores would drive small shopkeepers out of business with certain commodities.
Tobacco is one example and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has mentioned alcohol. Multiple stores might use such sales to attract customers who would almost certainly buy other goods and the result would be that mans small shopkeepers in those goods would lose a great deal of custom. There are other examples, but I am sure that the Secretary of State has had these matters brought to his attention. We have to try to do justice to all this hard-working, part of our community.
What would be the effect on the consumer? Because the Bill deals only with resale price maintenance, and does not touch the subject of monopolies, once small shopkeepers have been forced out of business, multiples would be able to hold the housewife to ransom over many commodities. Accepting the Amendment would safeguard not only the interests of the small shopkeeper, but the interests of the workers in the distributive trades and ultimately the interests of housewives and other consumers. I hope that the very strong case put by tie hon. Member for Crosby and from this side of the Committee will make the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is an Amendment which he can accept.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I rise to ask the Secretary of State to look carefully at the general principle lying behind the Amendment. The wording can easily be criticised and I propose to criticise some of it, but that is a drafting matter.
The principle behind the amendment is one which we should support. I believe that my right hon. Friend had in mind the danger to the small shopkeeper when in subsection (2,b) he provided that one of the considerations would be
the number of establishments in which the goods are sold by retail would be substantially reduced to the: detriment of the public as such consumers or users…


Why do we have to wait until a number of establishments—in other words, small shopkeepers—have been put out of business before the Restrictive Practices Court considers their interests?
That goes too far and the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) is right to try to alter the wording—I say "alter the wording" rather than make a separate subsection—when she says that the Court should be able to take into consideration the fact that they might suffer serious damage to their livelihood or that of the people they employ.
Once again, I criticise drafting: the hon. Lady speaks of self-employed retailers, but they may form themselves into a small private company and yet be in exactly the same position.
It would, therefore, be better if this matter were dealt with by some form of Amendment to subsection (2,b) whether it was a self-employed retailer, or a small private company. As a self-employed person myself, I have the greatest sympathy with self-employed people. I must not go on praising them unduly, or hon. Members will begin to think that I am speaking of myself, and I am not.
The smaller shops have a long history of good and valuable service. I am not in any way against supermarkets, big stores or big chain stores. They all have their part to play in the service of the country, but in some ways they have a great advantage over the small shopkeeper. They have much more capital and much more bargaining power when purchasing from manufacturers, and they are able to get much bigger discounts. They can sell their goods, be they wines or spirits or tobacco, at a much greater loss if for trading reasons that should suit them, quite regardless of the competition which that offers to the small shopkeeper.
The small shopkeeper should take that in his stride if he can, provided that he has protection in his agreements with the manufacturers. If every form of protection is removed from him, he will be in a very bad way, and it would be unwise and dangerous for the Committee to remove every form of protection from him.
This is a very modest Amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has pointed out, there are two safeguards because two matters have to be considered. It would be repetitive to mention them. However, I ask my right hon. Friend to look closely into the question of not waiting until the numbers of small shopkeepers are reduced, or when they are suffering substantial damage or hardship. This is a matter for the Court to decide and it should be given the opportunity to consider it when deciding whether a manufacturer should be allowed to retain resale price maintenance in respect of goods, many of which are sold in the small shops whose interests I have at heart as. I think, all hon. Members have.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Yesterday, I withdrew an Amendment in favour of this one. I am glad that I did so, for this Amendment is much more effective. The Amendment which I withdrew dealt only with the second part of this matter. It was concerned with the workers in the distributive trades. I am glad that this Amendment also includes the self-employed retailer, and I would accept at once the suggestion that the phrase might be extended to all small traders, whatever might be the character of their business.
I think that every hon. Member has received communications on behalf of the small traders. Sometimes we have been inclined to regard these as pressure by organised and interested groups, but no one who has met the representatives of these small traders can doubt that they have legitimate fears about the effect of the Bill. If the small traders were to become a less representative section of the community, the whole of our social life would suffer. Because of that, I am glad that the Amendment refers to retailers as well as to workers in the distributive trades.
I do not propose to emphasise that point, because it has been stressed at considerable length during the debate, but I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the personal association which the small shopkeeper at the corner of the street in an urban district, and the small shopkeeper in a village, has with the residents in the neighbouring streets is a valuable part of the social life of the country. If


the Bill were to result in those people going out of business, the image of our society would be damaged.
I propose to address my remarks chiefly to the position of workers in the distributive trades. There is a serious danger that they might suffer as a result of the Bill. If they do not all suffer, it will be due entirely to the strength of their trade union and to the extraordinary negotiating capacity of their officers and leaders, because we must not forget that even a strong union is not always able to protect all its workers.
When we go into a shop to buy an article, we are apt to forget all the elements involved in making that article available to us. I must keep to the Amendment, and, therefore, I shall go no further than saying that the production of the article involves not only the manufacturer and the retailer here, but the producer of the raw materials and foodstuffs in far-distant lands. Their conditions, have been getting steadily worse in recent years because of a fall in their prices.
The production of an article involves the relationship between the manufacturer and the wholesaler, and that between the wholesaler and the retailer, and one of our complaints about the Bill is that it has made the retailer the scapegoat of profit-making at the various stages of the industries which are dealt with by the Bill. The Amendment is concerned with the last stages in the process—with the retailers and the workers.
The Bill is typical of those produced by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. It ignores the workers employed in the distributive trades. There is not a Clause in the Bill to safeguard their position and no Amendment has been moved from the other side of the Committee to try to protect them.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not know whether the hon. Member was present yesterday when I moved Amendment No. 71, which included protection for the workers.

Mr. Brockway: I appreciate that, but the hon. Gentleman's Amendment followed an Amendment which I had tabled. He followed my initiative in that respect.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Gentleman's Amendment was No. 187, and mine was No. 71.

Mr. Brockway: I am not very good at figures. I do not think that that statement is right. Mine was the first of the two Amendments to be called yesterday, and I am sure that I tabled my Amendment before the hon. Gentleman tabled his. I do not want to become involved in that kind of banter. It is typical of the trivial way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite deal with such points. Nevertheless, I am prepared to accept what he says.
I am concerned about protecting the workers in the distributive trades. If the Bill goes through in its present form, it will lead to the dismissal of workers in that industry, due to the closing down of many shops. Unless these workers are protected by their trade union, many of them will have to work longer hours, and, because of reduced profits, pressure will be brought to bear on them for wages to be reduced.
I wish to make two appeals. My first appeal is to all distributive workers to join their trade union so that they will be strong enough to defend themselves against the danger which the Bill will bring to their conditions of employment. My second appeal is to the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment, which has been supported by hon. Members or both sides of the Committee.
Those who are associated with the Amendment are not very much concerned about the exact wording of it. We want the Government to accept the intention behind it, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, both for the sake of the retailers and small traders who are involved, and for the sake of the thousands of workers who may suffer, to accept the Amendment, which will do something at least to safeguard their interests.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: As one who has organised distributive workers for many years and who is an official of the trade union which caters for them, I am very proud that in this Committee today I have heard from hon. Members on both sides


praise of distributive workers. Goodness knows, they need some consideration in an industry which has an inflow and outflow probably more than in any other industry of the country.
I can understand that if the Bill were to intensify competition to the extent that bankruptcies and difficulties in distribution became matters which were thrown about over the negotiating table, in view of the gross profits made in the distributive trades, unless special consideration were given to them, the workers would suffer.
I am proud that opposite to me in the Committee is a lawyer whose father was a distinguished industrial lawyer. He was president of the Wholesale Grocers Joint Industrial Council when I entered this House and I was the chairman of that Council. The hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) has spoken in the debate and both employers and employees in the industry would support most strongly what has been said on behalf of distributive workers.
In the grocery trade there is a great deal of direct contact between the manufacturer and the retailer and when the total gross margin is no more than l6½ per cent. in many shops—because of intense competition—doing a trade of less than £200 a week, and having to keep one or two employees, it is certain that if the Bill intensifies that competition to the extent that wages are thereby placed in jeopardy, some day the conscience of this House must be aroused.
I hope that the Minister will respond to the appeals made from both sides of the Committee. The wording of the Amendment may not be all that it should be. It may be necessary to amend it so that the drafting will conform to many of the practices of law which perhaps those who drafted it do not fully understand, but I hope that the Minister will accept the principle of the Amendment and grant a reasonable concession on behalf of the distributive workers.

Mr. Edward Milne: I wish to support the Amendment. I do not think that we should be too finicky about the wording, because in itself the Amendment is admirable. If it were included

in the Clause it would strengthen the Bill.
I listened with some interest to the exchanges between my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and hon. Members opposite about who had the honour of first placing on the Notice Paper an Amendment to protect the interests of the small shopkeeper, and particularly of the distributive workers. I do not think it important from which side an Amendment first came. What is important is that in the drafting of the Bill the Government completely ignored both these interests.
Although the organised strength of the union which I am proud to represent would mitigate many of the dire effects of the Clause if this provision were excluded from it, this is not a sectional appeal. It is not only a question of stressing the claims of the small shopkeeper and the distributive worker, but also the real interests of the consumer in the context of the Clause. The rights of the small shopkeeper and the distributive worker will have to be reconsidered by the Restrictive Practices Court. Often when there are trends in distribution those working in the industry are more aware of those trends and their implications than are those whose job it is to derive profit from them.
Great praise has been given to the improvements which have taken place in distribution over the years. A great many of those improvements, into whatever quarter they have moved, have come about because of the existence of the union and the advice which the union has been prepared to give to employers on the joint negotiating and other bodies with which we are associated. I appeal to the Minister to look closely at the idea of accepting this Amendment.
Subsection (2) of the Clause would become largely meaningless and valueless unless some wording of this type were inserted. As the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) said when dealing with subsection (2,b):
the number of establishments in which the goods are sold by retail would be substantially reduced to the detriment of the public as such consumers or users
This is not purely a question of sectional interest. If the interests of the consumer


are to be protected by Clause 5, they can be further protected by the right of the self-employed small shopkeeper and the distributive worker to have his voice heard on changes and trends in the industry.

Sir Douglas Glover: I have listened to the speeches on the Amendment made by hon. Members opposite and by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) with great sympathy, I should like to support the Amendment, but I do not think that those who have spoken on it are being honest. I do not mean that in a nasty way. I do not think that they have thought out the Amendment to its logical conclusion.
Take the case of any item which goes before the Restrictive Practices Court. The small shopkeepers, presumably in the National Retail Alliance, will go before the Court and say, "We think that resale prices should be maintained on this commodity because, if not, it will be adverse to the principles of the Alliance". They have to say:
without any comparable gain to the public as consumers and users.
There is a loss to consumers and users, because if the Court accepts the view of the Alliance, which probably represents less than 10 per cent. of the turnover of that particular commodity, the other 90 per cent. will have to continue the sale at fixed prices because, if that were not done, it would be a detriment to the to 10 per cent. It would be very difficult, in those circumstances, to justify the contention that there was not a loss to the public as consumers and users. I do not see how the Amendment as worded could be justified.
The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby and other hon. Members say that they are not wedded to the wording of the Amendment. If something could be included in Clause 5 which would give the small retailers' organisation or the organised workers an opportunity to go to the Court to make their case, I should not have an objection, but we have to be clear about what the Amendment is designed to do. In practice, although I am sure that it was not in the minds of the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North or of

the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley), when they produced this Amendment, it would be largely a wrecking Amendment. If it were carried, and the Court worked on the wording of the Amendment, everything which was price-maintained at present would be price-maintained in future.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that when the hon. Member suggests that it is a wrecking Amendment he means that the result of the Bill will be to cause damage to small retailers, a fact which has frequently been denied by his right hon. Friend?

Sir D. Glover: I do not accept that at all. Personally, I do not think that I have spent £5 in a supermarket in my life. I go to individual retailers, because I like the individual retailer, I like to know the person to whom I am talking and I do not haggle over the ½. or 1d. on the price. I think that the same thing will apply in other cases.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North talked about her village shop, but I think that there is undue anxiety in the minds of that sort of shopkeeper as to what will happen as a result of the removal of resale price maintenance. I speak with some knowledge of a trade in which we have never had resale price maintenance. We had to compete one against another—but we had to make a profit, because we were not working as a philanthropic organisation.
The same thing will apply where there has been resale price fixing. If the retailer gives; the service which the public requires and needs, then the public will support and patronise his retail shop. It is not only a question of price. Reference has been made to cigarettes. People smoke too many cigarettes; I know that I do. But it is the kind of commodity that one does not want to travel very far to buy. One likes simply to be able to go into the store, to buy another packet and put oneself further on the road to damnation rather than travel half a mile to get add. off the price. What one wants is service. The small shop is available, and one buys from it. This applies to a great many commodities.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Surely if the hon. Member's interpretation of the Amendment is correct, it must follow that in his opinion the removal of resale price maintenance in most cases will cause serious damage to the livelihood of a number of retailers and workers
without any comparable gain to the public as consumers and users",
and that the Court cannot take that into account in reaching a decision. That must follow from his argument.

Sir D. Glover: It does not follow. I said that I would have no objection to my right hon. Friend incorporating in the Clause the right of a trade union, and, for example, the National Retailers' Alliance to state their case to the Court. All I said was that the Amendment as worded would, in my view, virtually wreck the Bill. Personally, therefore, I cannot support it, although I have enormous sympathy with the views of hon. Members who have spoken.

Mr. Winterbottom: The hon. Member said that he had no objection to various trade organisations and trade unions stating their views before the Court. We hope that that will be the opinion of the Committee in general. But what we are discussing is not whether people shall have the right of representation before the Court we are discussing the gateway within which the discussion shall take place at the Court. Even though the wording of the Amendment may not be strictly accurate, if it is accepted by the Minister it will become part of subsection (2) and will provide another paragraph for the consideration of the Court, quite apart from the right of representation.

Sir D. Glover: But the words are
without any comparable gain to the public as consumers and users".
I do not think that it would ever be possible to prove that, otherwise it would mean that fixed prices would be maintained over the whole field, which must be to the detriment of the public, in order to protect a very small segment of that field.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Winterbottom: I refer the hon. Member to the words of St. Matthew:
If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove

hence to yonder place; and it shall remove: and nothing shall be impossible unto you".
We are dealing with what the hon. Member believes or thinks or hopes will be done. We are dealing with the factual position, outlining what the Restrictive Practices Court will have to do and are considering, as it were, the terms of reference of the Court. I hope that the Minister will meet us on this matter, not in terms of the right of representation but in terms of words embracing the spirit of the Amendment and to be framed within the Clause.

Sir Hugh Linstead: I have extreme sympathy with the Amendment and with what is sought to be secured by it, but I am bound to say that share a little the difficulty which my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) expressed. It seems to me that what the Amendment seeks to remedy goes to the basis of the Bill and that it is a fundamental Second Reading point.
The Bill might very well threaten serious damage to the livelihood of large numbers of self-employed retailers and distributive workers, but if that is the case it is a vice inherent in the Bill, and the Bill having been given Second Reading by the House—with the silent acquiescence of the Labour Party—it seems to me extremely difficult at this late stage to try to cure a basic defect in the Bill by an Amendment in Committee.
If my right hon. Friend can suggest a way by which it is possible, no one will be more pleased than I, but I think that the drafting of subsection (2) is such that any Amendment of this kind sits almost impossibly in the company of the rest of the Clause. I wish that it did not. If the gateways (a), (b) and (c) and the tailpiece are examined, it will be seen that the point which runs through the whole of the criteria is the principle of
the detriment of the public as…consumers or users".
Although I wish that the criteria in the Amendment could be put into the Bill, I cannot see how it can be done in this way at this late stage in relation to the groups of people who are referred to in the Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: May I draw attention to Clause 8(3) in which the retailers


are allowed to be represented? Could they not put their case then?

Sir H. Linstead: I was coming to precisely that point. If the general situation is as I have described it, and if this is inherent in the Bill, and if my right hon. Friend can find no way by which something can be put into the Clause to achieve the objective of the Amendment, then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) said, we must look at the right of representation before the Court not only by associations of retailers, but possibly by associations of employees as being the way in which something of the nature of what is sought in the Amendment can be secured in relation to each application which comes before the Court.

Mrs. Castle: What is the good of giving the self-employed retailer and the distributive worker the right to put their case to the Restrictive Practices Court if, under the Bill, the Court is not empowered to take that case into account?

Sir H. Linstead: There will undoubtedly be an identity of interest between a manufacturer who makes an application and various people who are working in the industry concerned with those goods. It may very well be extremely valuable that the people working in the industry shall have the opportunity of being heard before the Court.
I am not myself abandoning all hope, until I have heard my right hon. Friend on the Amendment, about something being done here. I only point out that I think that the opportunity of doing this was missed on Second Reading and that this is a consequence of a Bill of this kind having gone as far as it has gone now. I shall listen with great attention to what my right hon. Friend says, and I very much hope that at a later stage we shall at least find a way by which the points of view of those referred to in the Amendment can be effectively put on individual applications before the Court.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman says that he hope that his right hon. Friend will find a way by which those mentioned in the Amendment will be able to state their point of view to the Court. If the Court when reaching its decision has no right under the Measure

to take into account any detriment to the small shopkeeper or to the worker, it would be a mere waste of time for these people to go there, knowing full well that it was outside the Court's jurisdiction to deal with the matters in which they were interest.

Sir H. Linstead: I do not want to appear to be taking a strongly differing point of view from that of the hon. Lady. I merely point out that under subsection (2,b) and (2,c) there are items in the gateways which are of substantial interest to the owners of businesses—to independent retailers—and those employed by them. It may well be extremely important to those two classes that they should be able to be heard concerning the number of establishments and the extent of the services which could be affected by the decision of the Court

Mr. Jay: Surely the hon. Gentleman sees that under the Clause it is only the interests of the consumer which can be taken into account, not those of either the retailer or the worker? Whether that is right or wrong, that is how the Bill stands, and it is what we are seeking to amend.

Sir Dereld Walker-Smith: Before my hon. Friend answers that point, may I put this to him? Would not the position be this? The retailer would have a right of representation. He could show cause that the number of establishments would be reduced, to the detriment of the consumer. If the number of establishments is reduced, that is likely, one would think, to lead to serious damage to the livelihood of large numbers of people employed. Therefore, in arguing the points under subsection (2,b), retailers are indirectly, if not directly, able to argue the point contained in the Amendment.

Mrs. Castle: The only point that the retailer would be able to argue under subsection (2,b) would be that he would be bankrupt. He could not press that he would be near bankrupt.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: There is nothing about bankruptcy here.

Mr. Winterbottom: It would be possible to argue that the number of establishments would be substantially


reduced, but that is the extent of the argument. If it is argued that employees have lost their jobs as a consequence, it is as a natural consequence. It is not part of the argument which must be advanced under this gateway. That is the problem.

The Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Edward Heath): Like my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), I fully appreciate and realise the reason why the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) is unable to be with us today. Many hon. Members of the Committee will recall the very robust and vigorous speech the hon. Gentleman made on Second Reading, when he spoke very much from his own experience. I remember then being impressed when the hon. Gentleman said this:
From the trade union angle I am not unduly fearful about the passing of the Bill…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1964; Vol. 691, c. 297.]
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that for other reasons he did not think that the Bill would achieve certain objectives which other Members had mentioned. I remember very well the vigorous way in which the hon. Gentleman said that he was
not unduly fearful about the passing of the Bill".
We have had a number of comments today about those engaged in the retail trade. I agree very much with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) that those employed in retail distribution ought to have full consideraion. I believe that the Government have given full consideration to these questions. We have only to recall the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act as the latest demonstration of the Government looking after the conditions of those working in offices and shops.
I know that my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Labour, who is now in another place, was keenly concerned about them, as I was myself when I was at the Ministry of Labour, because I originated the discussions which led to that Measure being put before the House of Commons. These are matters of great importance and those engaged in retail

distribution should have full consideration.

Miss Herbison: - The Minister gives the example of the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act as showing the good faith of the Government towards the workers. This frightens me a little, because if the workers have to wait as long after the Bill reaches the Statute Book before the realisation dawns of what damage might be done to them as they had to wait for the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill it will not be very much comfort for the workers.

Mr. Heath: That is not a very helpful remark by the hon. Lady.

Miss Herbison: It is true.

Mr. Heath: The matter certainly was not dealt with by the Labour Government when they were in power, if the hon. Lady wishes to exchange political views.
It has been said, rightly, that these matters should be given full consideration. I mentioned the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act as an example of action taken by the Conservative Government of avery important kind to deal specifically with that point. I did it also because, as I pointed out yesterday to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), there are interests which should be looked after, but the question is: is this the right way, by giving it as a reason for retaining resale price maintenance, to look after them? I suggest to the Committee that it is not. There are other ways in which this should be done.
For that reason, I would very gladly and willingly join the hon. Gentleman, as I often said in the past when I was Minister of Labour, in an appeal that those engaged in the distributive trades should join their trade union. I agree with that concept entirely. I think that my hon. Friends would fully support it. The trade union organisation is there to look after the interests of those engaged in particular industries. As was pointed out yesterday, they have been successful in doing this. This is the right approach to the interests of those who are engaged in retail distribution, as, indeed, in any other form of industry. I therefore hope that the Committee


will agree that the real question facing us now is how these interests are to be looked after.
I find that I have more confidence in the small shopkeeper than some of those who have contributed to our discussions. I have confidence for exactly the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) placed before the Committee, that when people go to the small shopkeeper they do not go always, or perhaps often, on a question of price, though even in this respect the small shopkeeper can often help, but because of other facilities which the small shopkeeper provides. So long as he continues to provide that service, he will flourish and be successful, and the more efficient he is in providing alternative services which the consumer wants the more successful he will be.
Let us not forget that there are many small shopkeepers who have emphasised that they want to have the facility to use their prices flexibly, in order, indeed, to compere with other forms of organisation. I would ask the hon. Member for Brightside, who is very experienced in these matters, this question. Is it not true to say that at least some of the advantages which those engaged in retail distribution have obtained in recent years have been due to the improved forms of retailing which have taken place in the last two or three years?
The retail workers themselves have benefited from this, and rightly so. Nobody is more pleased than I am. Let us not forget that the developments in retail distribution which are taking place, of which there has been an underlying stream of criticism in some of the remarks which have been made, have benefited those who have been engaged in and are now working in retail distribution. The trade unions, rightly, have been able to obtain advantages for their members as a result of these improved methods.

Mr. Winterbottom: If the right hon. Gentleman is thinking in terms of new methods of service, such as those employed in the self-service stores and supermarkets, I would remind him that these ideas must be left to one side when considering the type of service provided by the small shopkeeper over the counter.
5.0 p.m.
The small shopkeeper usually serves behind the counter in a shop in which the customer wishes to be served in the privacy of that shop. In many instances, the customer does not want her neighbours to know precisely what she is buying. This may sound odd, but it is true.
These people serve in small shops not from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. every day, but at intermittent hours during the day. Their problem involves having to buy at wholesale prices at the highest level—that is, without any discounts, and so on—which means that when they lose trade they not only lose the money they receive from their customers, but also the goodwill on which their businesses are built up.

Mr. Heath: I appreciate what the hon. Member has in mind, but we have on previous occasions discussed developments in wholesaling which have taken place, including the broad question of different discounts, I will not go into that matter now.
I was saying that, taking distributive workers as a whole—and not just those the hon. Member for Brightside has in mind—the improved means of retailing have helped those employed in retail distribution. I was pointing out that the trade unions have taken advantage of these improvements. Equally, if the Bill encourages the development of techniques it retail trading that, too, will be to the benefit of those who take part in retail distribution.
Not only is this point borne out by the experience of other countries, but also by the analysis of what has happened in bankruptcies in the grocery trade. This has benefited the small shopkeeper considerably, along with those engaged in retail distribution. Two things must not be overlooked when dealing with an Amendment of this kind. In a broad matter like this, we have a continuously improving standard of living and a continuously increasing population. Both of these things are vital for the prosperity of the distributive trade.
I have on previous occasions explained that the numbers engaged in distribution are increasing. As we know, the demand for manpower for manufacturing processes and other requirements throughout the country is also increasing. Over a


large part of the country there is a great demand for man and woman power to enter manufacturing processes. This is essential if we are to maintain our export output. We must, therefore, look carefully at the means of distribution, where the numbers engaged are steadily increasing, to see that manpower may be attracted into manufacturing processes in the right numbers, for those processes are the basis of our export effort.
Looking at the matter broadly—always bearing in mind those two important factors—I can understand why individual shopkeepers should have the sort of fears the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) expressed. However, looking at industry as a whole, these two factors are fundamental to its future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) was right in saying that the Bill is based on the interests of the consumer. The Amendment tries to add other interests to that basis—the interests of retailers and distributive workers. I have on previous occasions given the figure of 40 per cent. as being the part of the retail trade which is covered by r.p.m. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) does not estimate it as high as that and considers that it is probably about 20 per cent.
On my figure it means that about 60 per cent. of the retail distributive trade is not covered by r.p.m. That exists in the interests of the consumer, as, indeed, does all the manufacturing process of this country. As soon as it ceases to do that its reason for existence ceases and the well-known processes begin; in other words, it must produce or sell something else or go out of business.
Why, therefore, should there be a different approach to those items which are at the moment covered by r.p.m.? Should we say to the Court, "You must take every interest into account for maintaining fixed prices"? This lies at the bottom of the Bill and today's discussion. I pointed out yesterday, when dealing with an Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in respect of including the word "purchasers", that under the 1956 Act we were dealing with manufacturers. Here
we are dealing with a practice that involves wholesalers and retailers—the chain of distribution—and, therefore, the interests to be taken into account are those of the consumer.
It is fundamental to realise that more than 60 per cent. of the trade is without r.p.m. and that the only interest taken into account is that of the consumer—apart from negotiated wage agreements or such legislative procedures as the Measure concerned with shops and offices. They remain and cover the whole sphere; and it is right that that should happen.
However, I suggest that it is not right when, one is considering whether r.p.m. should go, to say that this part of our retail trade can only go provided not only the interests of the consumer but other interests—such as those of the shopkeeper and those who work in shops—are also considered; in other words, that the present position should be kept even though in certain cases it may be to the detriment of the consumer.
This is what lies at the bottom of the Amendment.

Mr. Winterbottom: I urge the right hon. Gentleman to recall that we are discussing a Clause which provides gateways to the Court. I accept his figure of 40 per cent. as representing that part of the retail trade which is covered by r.p.m. I accordingly accept that 60 per cent. of it is not. Nevertheless, the whole of the retail trade—100 per cent. of it—will be covered by the Bill. Even the parts of industry which have abolished r.p.m.—and the grocery trade has abolished it for years—will be subject to the Bill.
If there is a limitation of supply by a wholesaler on a retailer, that retailer, if aggrieved, will be able to take his case to the Court. I am trying to make the right hon. Gentleman realise that while his figure of 40 per cent. may be correct we are, nevertheless, legislating for the whole of the grocery trade, even that part which is not represented in that figure of 40 per cent.

Mr. Heath: The Bill deals with the question of where r.p.m. exists and is saying, "This is unlawful unless exemption is granted". That is its main purpose and why I am drawing the comparison between the 60 per cent. of the


retail trade in which there is no r.p.m.—and in which the interests of the consumer are the only interests—and the 40 per cent. I suggest that in deciding whether or not r.p.m. should be maintained—which is the purpose of the gateways—the sole consideration should be the interest of the consumer. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Putney is right when he hinged his remarks on the basis of the Bill. Other methods such as we have been discussing should be used to look after the interests of those engaged in the industry.
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) that when one considers the gateways themselves—in subsection (2,b)—one sees that the retailer and those who work in distributive industry will be affected. This must be looked at from the point of view of the consumer and whether the consumer will suffer disadvantage because of the number of establishments which are being reduced. In the same way, we are concerned with the variety or quality of goods and whether there will be disadvantage to the consumer, along with the services provided.
If it should be shown that the number of establishments and services provided for people is to the disadvantage of the consumer, then, indirectly, that affects retailers and those who work in the distributive industry. In that respect, they are already affected by the existing gateways.

Mrs. Castle: It is taking a very extraordinary form of development, is it not, to say that there must be a substantial reduction in the number of establishments? It means that one must have an absolute holocaust of small retailers closing and unemployment in the industry. We are saying in the Amendment that the Court should also be able to take into consideration serious damage, short of that total holocaust.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Lady is using extreme phrases which may be suitable for debates on foreign affairs but which do not apply in this Committee. "Holocaust" is not a word to which we are accustomed when dealing with retail distribution.
It is perfectly clear that it must be a substantial disadvantage to the con-

sumer and, perhaps, that there are no off-setting advantages. This gateway would introduce these other interests. Under it, it would not he necessary to show that any detriment to the public as a whole would arise from the ending of resale price maintenance. Those who applied under this gateway would need to show no more than detriment to those engaged in the trades concerned. It is then that the problem arises. The Court would be required to balance this against any gains to consumers or users.
I am advised that it poses a most difficult problem to the Court to try to balance up the interests on two quite different things. It would be asked, under the Amendment, to balance up the detriment to retailers and workers, on the one hand, against the gains to the consumers and users, on the other. It is generally believed that we have in any case posed the Court with a fairly serious problem which is to weigh up detriment and benefits to the consumer. If one now asks the Court, as this Amendments would do, to balance up detriment to retailers and workers, on the one hand, against gains to consumers and users, on the other, I am advised that we would be posing the Court with an almost impossible problem.
It is, in fact, a political or economic judgment, or, as was said yesterday, a combined political, economic and social judgment, and the right place for that to be made is in Parliament. I suggest, therefore, that the Amendment as drafted would, if adopted, pose an impossible problem to the Court. I am not putting that forward on purely technical, legalistic grounds. I am merely setting out that an Amendment which takes interests of that kind and tries to balance one against the other is a very difficult thing to ask any court to do. I am also suggesting that, for the reasons I have explained, the Bill is based fundamentally on the interests of the consumers and the interests of retailers and workers in distribution should be covered by other means, such as we have discussed.
It has been pointed out that there are on the Notice Paper Amendments which deal with Clause 8 and especially subsection (3). It would not be in order for me now to go into the question of


those Amendments. Other hon. Members touched upon that. All I would say is that I recognise that the Bill gives a right of representation to retailers. I believe that that is important—I think that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) rather discounted this—because it enables them to give firsthand views on the matters embodied in Clause 5(2) about quality, variety of goods and services, and the number of establishments. On those matters they could have very valuable views which they could give to the Court.
It does not carry the corollary that they ought, therefore, to be included in a gateway. I do not think that that necessarily follows at all. They can give valuable evidence without themselves being part of the interests which have to be weighed up.

Mr. Winterbottom: They are covered by this gateway.

Mr. Heath: I have been pointing out—

Mr. Winterbottom: rose—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir John Arbuthnot): Order. The hon. Gentleman must give way while the right hon. Member is on his feet.

Mr. Heath: I have pointed out that the retailer is covered by Clause 8(3).

Mr. Winterbottom: And by Clause 5(2).

Mr. Heath: No, the retailer is not covered by Clause 5. The interests covered in Clause 5 are the interests of the consumer and indirectly, because of the number of establishments, the retailer could be affected, as could be some of the distributive workers.
I was coming to the point which was raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn and other hon. Members that under Clause 8(3) the retailer has the right of representations in the proceedings which, I think, is valuable because of what he can do there. From representations which have been made to us, the retailer wishes to have that right. I think that, undoubtedly, later in the proceedings, we shall hear put forward under other Amendments the argument that those who are engaged in retail

distribution should also have the right of representation in that way. I believe that this is a matter at which we should look very seriously when the time comes. I would not advise the Committee to accept the Amendment for the reasons that I have given.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I do not know whether it was a slip of the tongue, but my right hon. Friend said that the retailer came under Clause 8(3), and he went on to say that it might be right to include retail distributors as well. Was he referring merely to the retailer, or was he going on to consider those employed in distribution?

The Temporary Chairman: We are getting rather wide of the Amendments.

Mr. Heath: I was referring to the distributive workers. I was saying that when these Amendments come up that we shall have to pay serious consideration to that point. I would, therefore, tell the Committee that it is not possible for me to accept the Amendment which we are now discussing, but that I shall, of course, give serious consideration to the Amendments which come later.

Mr. Jay: I think that the Minister has made an astonishingly doctrinaire speech. In some respects, it was a positively extremist speech. He is arguing that in deciding on exemptions in the Bill the interests of everyone but the consumer ought to be totally disregarded. We are merely saying that they should be taken into account to some extent, and he is arguing that they should be completely disregarded. It is no answer, and it is not relevant, to say that something may be done about representation. We are not discussing on this Clause representation before the Court we are discussing what the Court can take into account in its deliberations.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said, if the interests of the retailers and the workers are bound to be ignored because of the law, there is very little that they can achieve by being represented. The Minister entirely failed to meet that point. The hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead), who, I know, is anxious to be helpful, said that because


the Bill had been given a Second Reading we could not make any Amendment to Clause 5.

Sir H. Linstead: indicated dissent.

Mr. Jay: If the hon. Member is not saying that, then he did not make much contribution. If I had thought that the Second Reading would make it impossible for Amendments of this kind to be made to this Clause. I would have voted against the Second Reading. We know from the rules of the House that if it were out of order to amend the Bill in the way that we are suggesting, because it would be totally contrary to the principles of the Bill, we could not have been allowed to debate these Amendments. Clearly, it is in order, and is highly relevant.
When we look at this Clause we find that it is, like the Minister's speech, of a most extreme character. It tells us whose interests the Court may take into account deciding on the exemptions. It says, in effect—and the Minister confirmed this, so there is no dispute—that nobody's interests can be taken into account except that of the consumer, and the right hon. Gentleman says that, because he has decided that, it is really improper, or quite wrong, to make any suggestion that someone else's interest should be taken into account. We do not agree that that is just, and if it is the consequence of the Bill that everyone's interest is to be totally disregarded, that does not mean that this discussion should not go on; but that the Bill is obviously defective in this respect, and that we are trying to put it right.
Our Amendment—and, as I said before, I do not think that the interpretation put on it by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) is correct—is very moderate in its substantial intention. It still accepts that the consumer's interests should be paramount. I agree with the Minister that the consumer's interests should be paramount—the consumer is the whole nation, and any group of distributors or retailers is but a section of the nation—but I do not agree that other people's interests should be totally ignored.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) quite rightly said that under sub-

section (2,b), indirectly, the retailer's interest comes into account only in the one instance that if the reduction in the number of establishments were shown to be contrary to the interests of the consumer and happened also to be detrimental to the retailer—that is incidental and accidental—the retailer's interest would he taken into account. That is quite true, but it does not meet the real point at all.
I should have thought—and I welcome the support our Amendment has had from two hen. Members opposite—that ours is really an extremely moderate proposition. To suggest that, where there was serious damage to large numbers of self-employed persons and distributive workers without comparative gain, the Court should at least be able to take note of it, is about as moderate a suggestion as any that one could possibly put forward. For the Minister to argue that that should not even be taken into account really prompts one to think, as I sometimes do, that the Bill was drafted by a fanatic and pushed through by a doctrinaire.
I hope that that is not too strong language—I would not have used it before the Minister's speech this afternoon—but to reply that this very reasonable Amendment is contrary to his impression about the Bill, and that, therefore, whether it is just or socially desirable is completely irrelevant, is incredibly doctrinaire—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that his Amendment retains the principle of the paramountcy of the consumer. That seems to be contrary to the natural meaning of the words used. The words "without any comparable gain" suggest not the paramountcy of the consumer, but an exact parity between consumer and retailer.

Mr. Jay: The only point is that the tailpiece governs all the subsections. It would govern (d) as well as the others—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: But the tailpiece does not apply at all until one is through the gateway.

Mr. Jay: The Minister says that he is advised that it would be very difficult for the Court to compare the interests and


welfare of the consumer with those of the retailers and distributive workers. That may be so, but that is the system the Government proposed. The Government introduced the Restrictive Practices Court—we originally argued that these were decisions that should be taken by Parliament and a Minister. That issue has been decided.
We have the Court, which has to take these decisions, and if it has to take them surely they should be just. We think that the welfare of one section of the community should be weighed against that of another, but the Minister now says that, having set up the Court and launched the Bill, because it would be rather awkward, under his own procedure, to take one section of the community into account, that section should be ignored. That is to introduce an unjust procedure, and to defend it by saying that, under his system, anything else

would be unworkable is an extraordinary proposition to put before us.

We have had a good deal of propaganda from hon. Members opposite about the small shopkeeper, but it is sometimes seen that the proposals put forward are more in the interests of the manufacturers than those of the small shopkeepers. But here is a proposal that would help the genuine small shopkeeper and the distributive worker. All the Amendment would do would be to enable their arguments to be listened to and their interests to be weighed against those of the others. It is incredible that the Minister should offer no concession to that point of view, and hope that he will think about it again. If not, we shall certainly divide the Committee.

Question put,That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 153, Noes 216.

Division No. 82.]
AYES
[5.25 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Grey, Charles
Moody, A. S.


Albu, Austen
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Barnett, Guy
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Moyle, Arthur


Beaney, Alan
Harper, Joseph
Mulley, Frederick


Bence, Cyril
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Oliver, G. H.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hayman, F. H.
O'Malfey, B. K.


Benson, Sir George
Healey, Denis
Oswald, Thomas


Blyton, William
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Harbison, Miss Margaret
Pargiter, G. A.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Lelcs, S.W.)
Hilton, A. V.
Paton, John


Bowles, Frank
Holland, Philip
Pavitt, Laurence


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Houghton, Douglas
Peart, Frederick


Bradley, Tom
Hoy, James H.
Pentland, Norman


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Popplewell, Ernest


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, R. E.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, A. E.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Carmichael, Nell
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Randall, Harry


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Rankin, John


Chapman, Donald
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Redhead, E. C.


Collick, Percy
Janner, Sir Barmett
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Reid, William


Crosland, Anthony
Jeger, George
Reynolds, G. W.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Kelley, Richard
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Dalyell, Tam
Kenyon, Clifford
Ross, William


Darling, George
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
King, Dr. Horace
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Short, Edward


Dempsey, James
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silkin, John


Diamond, John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dodds, Norman
Lipton, Marcus
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Skeffington, Arthur


Driberg, Tom
MacColl, James
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, H.)


Duffy, A. E. P. (Coine Valley)
Mclnnes, James
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Small, William


Edelman, Maurice
MacPherson, Malcolm
Snow, Julian


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sorerrsen, R. W.


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Evans, Albert
Manuel, Archie
Spriggs, Leslie


Foley, Maurice
Marsh, Richard
Steele, Thomas


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mayhew, Christopher
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Millan, Bruce
Stones, William


Galpern, Sir Myer
Milne, Edward
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke on-Trent, C.)


Gourlay, Harry
Monslow, Walter
Taverne, D.


Greenwood, Anthony






Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Whitlock, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Thornton, Ernest
Willey, Frederick
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Wainwright, Edwin
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)



Warbey, William
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Weitzman, David
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Mr. Lawson and




Mr. Charles A. Howell.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Harris, Frederia (Groydon, N.W.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Allason, James
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Amery, Rt, Hon. Julian
Harrison, Brian (Maiden)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Atkins, Humphrey
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Percival, Ian


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Hay, John
Peyton, John


Balniel Lord
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Heald, Rt. Hon. Edward
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Barlow, Sir John
Hendry, Forbes
Pitt, Dame Edith


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hill, J. E, B. (S. Norfolk)
Pounder, Rafton


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Berkeley, Humphry
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Biffen, John
Hocking, Philip N.
prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Biggs-Davison, John
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Bingham, R. M.
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hollingworth, John
Quenneil, Miss J. M.


Black, Sir Cyril
Holt, Arthur
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Hornby, R. P.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bourne-Arton, A.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Rees-Davies, w. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Box, Donald
Hughes-Young, Michael
Ridsdale, Julian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Hutbert, Sir Norman
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Brewis, John
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'th'ld)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Bryan, Paul
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buck, Antony
James, David
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Dunoan


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Johnson, Eric (Btackley)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Seymour, Leslie


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Campbell, Gordon
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Shaw, M.


Channon, H. P. G.
Kershaw, Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H.


Chataway, Christopher
Kirk, Peter
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lagden, Godfrey
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Lambton, Viscount
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cleaver, Leonard
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Strainton, Keith


Cole, Norman
Leather, Sir Edwin
Stevens, Geoffrey


Cooper, A. E.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stodart, J. A.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Corfield, F. V.
Lindsay, Sir Martin
Studholme, Sir Henry


Coulson, Michael
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Summers, Sir Spencer


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Litchfield, Capt. John
Tapsell, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'd field)
Temple, John M.


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Longbottom, Charles
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Curran, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loveys, Walter H.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Dance, James
Lubbock, Eric
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


d'Avigdcor Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lucas, Sir Jocetyn
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Gordon


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
McLaren, Martin
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Turner, Colin


du Cann, Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; Ayrs)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Duncan, Sir James
Macmillan, Maurice (Hallfax)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Eden, Sir John
Maddan, Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Martland, Sir John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Vickers, Miss Joan


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Wade, Donalld


Fell, Anthony
Marten, Nell
Walker, Peter


Finlay, Graeme
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Fisher, Nigel
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wall, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Freeth, Denzil
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C
Whitelaw, William


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Mills, Stratton
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Gammans, Lady
Miscampbell, Norman
Write, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Morrison, John
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Goodhew, Victor
Neave, Airey
Woodhouse, C. M.


Green, Alan
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Woodnutt, Mark


Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Woollam, John


Gurden, Harold
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael



Halt, John (Wycombe)
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. Batsford and Mr. R. W. Elliott.

Mr. John M. Temple: I beg to move, in page 5, line 21, after "detriment", to insert:
taking into account in particular the interests of those living in sparsely populated areas".
Before I proceed to discuss this Amendment, I wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way in which throughout three days he has sat on the Front Bench and hardly missed a word that has been spoken in these debates. I think that my right hon. Friend richly deserves the comment in The Times today, that
…he now seems to have pleased almost everybody".
Last night, that certainly was the case. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend has today lapsed just a little from grace, but I am hopeful, now that we have come to this point in the Bill, that he will be back in his form of last evening and will be able to accept this Amendment.
Whatever view one takes about the gateways—and I think that we are all very glad that we have disposed of the so-called gateways in this Clause—whether they are wide or narrow, at the end of the day the Court, having decided that a particular trade has succeeded in proving a prima facie case and getting through the gateways, will then have to judge which is the greater public interest. I believe that this will be the greatest difficulty for the Court.
I submit that the question of the public interest is a point on which it might well be desirable for us in Parliament to give the Court some advice. There is a substantial difference between the public interest in the big towns and cities of the country and the public interest in the sparsely populated areas. The Bill, very significantly, applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, and in that respect it is almost unique. It applies to Northern Ireland as well as to England. Scotland and Wales.
Those of us who know the sparsely populated areas of the country know how very valuable the small and mobile shops are. Most of us do not live in those areas, but most of us have visited them and gone into a cosy little shop where the shopkeeper can always apprise us of everything that is going on in the locality. Of course, after the visitors have departed it is only the people who

live in these sparsely populated areas who will, in fact, patronise that shop, and today, thanks to the prosperity of the countryside, the wage-earners who live there have, very largely, their own transport.
If there is a sharp differential in the prices of goods as between the small country shops and shops in the town, those wage-earners will be attracted to take their motor transport and go to the local towns and do their weekly shopping. All that might be left to the local shop would be the trade of the old and the very young. I stress the "very young", because those in the teen-age groups have motor scooters and motor cycles available. It is quite unrealistic to think that these local shops can maintain their trade on the basis of the custom of the old and the very young and those who go to the countryside for a week or two in the summer on holiday.

Mr. John Hynd: Do I understand from what the hon. Member says that the word "those" in the Amendment refers to the shopkeepers and not to the consumers? If so, in the light of what the Minister has told us, is not the Amendment irrelevant?

Mr. Temple: No, because where the Amendment applies in it the Clause refers to the public as consumers. Therefore, the Amendment is entirely applicable to the interests of the public as consumers, but what I am taking into account is the importance of the small shops to the public as consumers in the sparsely populated areas.
The Amendment is moved as a result of no pressure groups whatsoever. The public on whose behalf I am speaking are extremely fortunate in that they never read Parliamentary Bills! They rely on their representatives in Parliament to understand their interests, and speak on their behalf. It is incumbent upon Members of Parliament to put the case for a public which otherwise is largely inarticulate.
The underlying object of the Bill is to increase competition and to bring down prices. As for bringing down prices, I was glad that last night my right hon. Friend gave an undertaking on the question of any increases in prices. I was concerned, when I tabled


this Amendment, that the diminution of resale outlets might lead to an increase in prices. Thanks to the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend last night, that aspect will be covered, but I am concerned about a decrease of a substantial nature in the number of resale outlets in sparsely populated areas.
Whereas, in our great cities and large towns, a small diminution of resale outlets would not be significant, where there is only one village shop or two mobile shops, and where the village shop is eliminated or the two mobile shops are reduced to one, competition between those retailers will be severely diminished to the detriment of the public as consumers who are living in a sparsely populated area.
Some hon. Members may wonder why I chose the term "sparsely populated". I do not know that it is precedented in other statutes. I chose it because think that it is, in the words of my right hon. Friend, which I can safely use at this hoar of the day, a "justiciable issue" and I thought that "sparsely" is something that could be interpreted easily by the Court. If the Court can make a judgment on what "substantial" means it can certainly make a judgment on the basis of the meaning of "sparsely". If I had chosen the expression "rural areas" it might have been misinterpreted in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In any case, some so-called rural districts are not entirely rural. "Low density" is sometimes used with reference to population, but I thought that was not as applicable as the word "sparsely".
When I have spoken in this Chamber on other occasions on legislation of a somewhat similar character, and have been faced with the difficulty of indicating some guidance to an administrative tribunal which would judge a matter of this nature, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has frequently said, "This is a matter which is suitable to be placed in a ministerial circular". Unfortunately, by having chosen the procedure of a judicial tribunal, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as far as I can see, has cut himself off from any communication with the Restrictive Practices Court. He cannot send a message of guidance to the Court in any way.
The only guidance that the Court will use will be the words in the Statute. It is for thin reason that I have sought to insert those words in the Bill. This guidance might have been more suitable as guidance conveyed in a ministerial circular, but I do not believe that in this instance that course of action is open to us.
5.45 p.m.
My right hon. Friend has said on various occasions that he cannot judge what the Court will decide in respect of any particular application. I would say that the pronouncements of the courts are extremely unpredictable. Therefore, I seek, through this Amendment, to draw the attention of the Court to the special interests of those living in the sparsely populated areas. If one assessed the public interest as a whole throughout the country one would find that a far higher proportion of the total population living in cities and towns than in the sparsely populated areas.
A few moments ago my right hon. Friend mentioned that we were to see a vast increase in the population. It will be within the knowledge of the Committee that hat increase will not occur in sparsely populated areas, but in the already built-up areas of our towns.
I shall not claim in any way that the wording of the Amendmen is unexceptionable. It was drawn up with the help of a Parliamentary Agent and my right hen. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). It has not the advantage of a Parliamentary draftsman behind it but I would point out to my tight hon. Friend that what we are asking is only that the Court should have to take this matter into account. We are not seeking to prejudge the issues. It is purely a factor that the Court would have to take into account in weighing the public interest. Believing as I do that the village shop and the mobile shop are an essential part of the rural scenes, I would hope that the Committee would not dare to risk damaging this service to the community. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment may prove acceptable to the Committee.

Mr. J. Hynd: My intervention in the debate will be short, to ask only what purpose the Amendment would serve in the light of the wording of the Clause.


Subsection (2) provides that these factors shall be taken into account in so far as they concern detriment to the public in each case under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). A detriment to the public in any particular case will depend on the circumstances of the public in different areas. In other words, detriment to the public may be in one form in a sparsely populated area and in another form in an urban area. One would have thought that this would be self-evident to anybody considering what was detrimental to the public.
What, therefore, is the additional value of the Amendment? Furthermore, the Amendment uses the words:
taking into account in particular the interests…".
Do those who support the Amendment mean that the Court should be asked to take into account in particular the interests of those living in a sparsely populated area? I should have thought that the Court would be required to take into account the interests of the whole population, that is those living in sparsely populated areas with their special problems and those living in urban areas with theirs.
It is on this ground that I ask whether there is any purpose at all in the Amendment.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I agree with every word spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), even to the extent of saying that I am not entirely happy about the drafting of the Amendment, and that I doubt whether, in this form, it could be accepted.
Here I should like to answer the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd). The purpose of the Amendment is to meet the danger of the Court, sitting in London, having to weigh up the resulting detriment to the whole of the inhabitants of the country, the major proportion of whom would be living in large urban areas. What the Amendment tries to do, no doubt imperfectly, is to get the Court to pay particular attention to the problem in the more sparsely populated areas—in other words, not to weigh up the problem quantitatively but, taking my own constituency, to do it qualitatively as well. This is a real problem.
I am sure that there is justification for saying that in some cases resale price systems provide undue margins. I can think of several reports that I have read on the subject. On the other hand, one of the major points of a resale price system is to see that one pays the same price for a product whether one lives at the top of one of the dales in Yorkshire, or in a crowded borough in London. That is another problem.
One of my anxieties on Clause 5 is whether my own constituents, who live in more sparsely populated areas, will not lose tremendously as a result of the ending of some of these systems. It is not merely a question of price. It is also a question particularly of service. It concerns people who are living in a locality where there is no rail or bus service, such as constituents of mine who live in villages and who rely on the mobile shop. The whole system of credit in a village is a much more homely and reasonable affair than in the towns. If that is to be destroyed, the result will be that these areas which are now sparsely populated will be much more sparsely populated, and that will not be good for my right hon. Friend in his endeavours in connection with regional development, nor, indeed, for any other Member of the House. That is the problem. I do not say that it is easy to solve.
I should like the Restrictive Practices Court to go on circuit. I am sure that it would enjoy sitting in some of the village halls in the dales, where it could appreciate much more closely the problems in these rural areas. I do not see how my right hon. Friend can tackle it with the form of words such as my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester has suggested. However, it is a problem which we must tackle before we dispose of the Bill. At the same time, we do not want prices to increase and services to diminish in the rural areas as a result of any Measure brought forward by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I strongly support the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). As I understand it, this Amendment asks that the Court shall be particularly sensitive about the position of consumers who live in sparsely


populated areas. There is a distinct danger that unless one has an emphasis of this kind the Court will be tempted to look at the position of consumers as a whole, and in carrying out that process there is a danger that the specialised position of those living in areas such as the hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) has in mind will be overlooked.
The situation is likely to become more acute as time goes on. The sparsely populated areas are, in the main, becoming more sparsely populated. That is the trend. An additional factor which has not been mentioned so far is that public transport in those areas has seriously diminished.

Mr. F. A. Burden: In those areas also the wages are low compared with the rest of the country, so that any rise in prices would bear most harshly on people living in those areas.

Mr. Bowen: That is certainly so.
I was dealing with the question of public transport. In my area many of the villages now have a poorer public transport system than they have had at any time during the last 50 years. We often talk about the necessity to maintain a population in the countryside and to provide the basic social services. I believe that one basic social service is a reasonable standard of retail trade. I think that it is right and proper that we should ask the Court—whether precisely in the form suggested in the Amendment I do not know, but perhaps in some other form—to pay particular regard to the position of the consumer in an area such as the hon. Member for the City of Chester has in mind.

Mr. John Farr: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple). I think that this Amendment is eminently suitable, because it recognises the unique position occupied by people who live in sparsely-populated areas.
I should also like to support the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) about the availability of public transport. As is no doubt the case in Wales and as is also true in many other parts of Britain, train and bus services are becoming increasingly restricted, and it is thus be-

coming increasingly necessary for people who want to shop in the towns to possess their own means of transport. Unfortunately, this is not always financially possible.
There is all the difference in the world between the public interest as it affects a person who lives in a sparsely-populated area and one who lives in a busy shopping town. Subsection (2,b) of the Clause refers to a substantial reduction in the number of retail establishments as being a sufficient reason to exempt goods from the provisions of this Bill. In a town with 100 shops a substantial reduction would probably be 10, but in a village or hamlet with only two shops a reduction of one would be an extremely substantial reduction.
Another reason I would like my right hon. Friend to incorporate my hon. Friend's suggestion into the Bill is that a purchase who is living miles away from a shopping centre is far more dependent than a town dweller on the reliability and quality of the goods that he buys. If something goes wrong with a purchase a town dweller can go to the shop next door in the morning. For the country dweller it is probably a case of making a morning's journey, probably on a Saturday morning. Obviously, a person living in the country is far more dependent upon the reliability and serviceability of the goods which he purchases.
If a country dweller buys a radio or television set, he is far more dependent upon it being in good working order. because it is more difficult for him to get reliable attention for it, living, perhaps, 20 miles from a centre of population, than would be someone living in a town just round the corner from the retail shop.
For those and other reasons, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to incorporate this innocent little Amendment in the Bill.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Winterbottom: I support the Amendment, strangely enough, for none of the reasons so far advanced. I regard all those reasons as illogical and quite contrary to the interests of consumers. It is not true to say that even the remotest parts of the country today are not served by mobile shops just as effectively as ever


they were in the past. Indeed, the modern type of mobile shop—I think that I was one of the first to start mobile shops, about 40 years ago—penetrates into all but one or two sparsely populated parts of the country.
As I see it, there will be this rather peculiar situation. If the village shops are exempted, travelling shops sent round to the villages may, within the terms of the Bill, indulge in the abolition of resale price maintenance and, in the long run, this will be dangerous for the shopkeepers in the rural establishments because the travelling shops will more and more capture their trade in out-of-the-way places.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: There is no suggestion in the Amendment that resale price maintenance should be abolished for shops or retail establishments in urban areas and not in the countryside. There is no question of making that distinction at all.

Mr. Winterbottom: The proposal is that after "detriment" in the final paragraph there should be inserted:
taking into account in particular the interests of those living in sparsely populated areas".
Taking that into consideration gives exemption.

Mr. Farr: The hon. Gentleman is wrong there. In fact, the detriment referred to is not the detriment referred to in the last line of paragraph (c) of subsection (2), but is the detriment in line 21, which gives the matter a quite different aspect.

Mr. Winterbottom: Nevertheless, the fact remains—[Laughter.] No, it does not matter where the detriment applies. It is suggested that the particular interests of those living in sparsely populated districts should be taken into account, and this means that it would be a factor to be taken into account by the Restrictive Practices Court before exemptions can be given.

Mr. William Wells: In going through the gateway.

Mr. Winterbottom: Through the gateway, yes, but before exemptions can be given. After an exemption has been considered, this will in the final analysis have to be taken into consideration, and, if the Court is satisfied—assuming that

the Amendment is accepted—an exemption can be granted.

Mr. Temple: May I endeavour to explain a matter which is not clear to the hon. Gentleman? There is no question of exempting shops in any particular part of the country. Exactly the same rules would apply to shops in all parts. All we are asking is that the Court should take into account this special factor in reaching its judgment.

Mr. Winterbottom: Yes, but in this connection it would not be taking into account in reaching a judgment all the shops in the country because all shops are not in sparsely populated districts Therefore, they are to be exempted according to the actual terms of the Amendment.
I come now to what worries me in connection with shops in very remote parts. I am frightened that the remote village shopkeeper, because of the way he conducts his business and the habits of life in the village, may find his livelihood in jeopardy. The village shopkeeper is not merely a person who supplies goods. He is the one to whom villagers go for all sorts of purposes. He is the one who has to know whether a baby has been born, sometimes he is the one who telephones for the midwife, and very often he has many other things to do as well.
In many instances, because he knows the individual circumstances of almost every person in the village, the village shopkeeper can give special consideration to the needs and circumstances of each villager. I have known occasions when times have been hard in some villages in sparsely populated areas and shopkeepers have not only granted credit for long periods, but have even allowed goods to go from their shops at less than the wholesale prices to them. This is where the danger may lie. If a shopkeeper did that, and the wholesaler supplying him from the nearest town discovered it, the wholesaler could, according to the terms of the Bill, stop his supplies. If it is desired to have exemption for shops in the sparsely populated districts, there should be a specific provision in the Clause to deal with their special needs and qualifications.
I know that there are certain considerations regarding the number of


shops necessary in these areas, and I know that the problem in rural parts is not the same as it is in urban parts. I sometimes wonder whether paragraph (b) of subsection (2), which refers to the number of establishments being substantially reduced to the detriment of the public, should not have contained a requirement to consider whether or not there were too many retail outlets in some urban areas.

The Temporary Chairman: I do not think that that arises on this Amendment.

Mr. Burden: What the Amendment is aimed at is this. If resale price maintenance were withdrawn, there would be nothing to stop a retailer in the North of England, because of delivery charges, charging more to the customer in outlying districts than if the business were strictly controlled by resale price maintenance

Mr. Winterbottom: I shall deal with that later.
I contend, first, that there is a danger here because of circumstances in the sparsely populated regions where the shopkeeper, because of the friendly way in which he lives and conducts his business and because of his knowledge of the people, can do things which would enable a wholesaler, sometimes the one who is supplying the travelling shop, to stop supplies to the small shopkeeper and then—I have known this sort of thing to happen—to use a well stocked travelling shop in an effort to supplant the small shopkeeper.
I now come to the problem of prices. There is a danger in prices, and that is why I support the Amendment. If we take away the principle of resale price maintenance and allow anyone to charge less than the resale price subject to the provisions of the Bill, we will also take away the provision which some suppliers demand that the retail price shall be the standard price and that by taking away the standard price it will allow for an increase in price over and above the standard price. This is one of the difficulties which will arise in the rural areas and this is the only reason why I support the Clause.
The other arguments which have been put forward, although they may be true,

are not relevant because they do not affect the Clause. The only logical argument is that the wholesaler who is supplying goods over great distances will have to add something to the cost of the goods to cover the cost of transport. Just as there should be, in subsection (2,b), provision to deal with limitations on shops, so there should be something in the Bill to prevent them from overcharging for the goods. This is why there would be difficulties in rural parts of the country.
I know that this may not be unusual in some of the remote parts. When I have gone into some of the shops in the country districts, the town prices have been exceeded in many cases. With the practical knowledge of having supplied shops on a wholesale basis in remote rural parts, I can say that, even with resale price maintenance, customers pay more than they would pay in the urban parts.

Mr. Turton: Is the hon. Member suggesting that under resale price maintenance more is being charged for branded articles in the rural areas than is authorised under the agreement?

Mr. Winterbottom: No, I am not suggesting that. I am saying that usually prices in the country districts are slightly higher, even though there may be resale price maintenance on some of the articles and even though they are not branded goods. Resale price maintenance is applied to non-branded goods. In some cases prices in the country districts are higher than those in the town.
If that situation obtains now, it will be intensified when the Bill becomes law, because the wholesaler will say, "Not only has the standard price gone but, from my point of view, the whole price level has disappeared and you can charge what you like". Any transport costs which the wholesaler often has to charge over and above the charge which he makes in urban districts will be put on the bill and the standard price in rural areas will be increased. For that reason alone, I support the Amendment.

6.15 p.m.

Sir Patrick Bishop: I do not think that I can entirely follow the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom),


but I wish to express the hope that my right hon. Friend will give some consideration to the purpose of the Amendment. What concerns me is what might be called the side effects of the Bill in country areas. I do not represent a country area, but I live in a small village of only a few hundred inhabitants where we get services and benefits on a very similar scale to those which people in large towns get.
Yesterday and the day before we were discussing newspaper deliveries. It is a marvel to me that in a small village of a few hundred inhabitants, eight miles from the nearest railway station, I still get my newspaper delivered every morning in time for breakfast at exactly the same price as I get it in my fiat in town—that is, the fixed price printed on the newspaper without any extra charge for delivery.
I am very well aware that, to some extent, that depends on the fact that there is a shop in the village which undertakes this work, but which is largely dependent on the sale of a number of items which are subject to resale price maintenance and which is able to compete not only with the travelling shop, but with the big general store a mile or so away.
Newspapers are only one example. It is a matter of the greatest importance to people that there should be a post office in every village and hamlet. In fact, there is, but the village postmaster does not live entirely by selling stamps and postal orders. He also engages in the sale of cigarettes, chocolates and other items in respect of which he is in competition with the general store and with the travelling shop which comes round daily. If the price of these items in which he trades is cut by the travelling shop representing the store in the town, and if he finds that he cannot compete, I wonder what will happen when the village post office job falls vacant and the Postmaster-General advertises for someone else to take it over.
I want to defend the local village shop as against the travelling shop which comes round from the town in competition with it. I am anxious to defend the services which we get in the country—it is a marvel to me that we get them

in the way that we do—compared with the services which we get in town and which, in part at any rate, depend on the capacity of the small local man to compete with competitors from outside. That in turn is in part dependent on the maintenance of standard prices.
It is for those reasons that I support my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) and ask my right hon. Friend to give consideration to the principle of the Amendment.

Miss Herbison: I support the Amendment. It is a very modest Amendment, but one which might make a very great difference to the lives of all those who live in the sparsely populated areas.
One hon. Member spoke about those who lived in the dales. I know very well those who live in the glens and the many sparsely populated areas in Scotland. It is a modest Amendment because it asks that in reaching a decision and considering the resulting detriment, the Court should take into account particularly the sparsely populated rural areas. It does not ask for what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) thought it asked, namely, that there should be resale price maintenance in the sparsely populated areas but not in the cities and urban areas. If the Court does its job, as I expect it will, this is only one of the factors to which it must turn its mind before reaching a decision.
The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), who moved the Amendment, said that the Minister will not be able to send notes or circulars to the Court to say that it should take this or that into account. The Court will be bound by whatever is in the Bill when it goes on to the Statute Book. Those of us who are concerned, as I was in the last Amendment, about the small shopkeeper and, in this Amendment, particularly about people who live in sparsely populated areas must be in favour of the Amendment.
If r.p.m. is abolished on certain articles, people who live in the sparsely populated areas might find that prices rise considerably.

Mr. Burden: Does the hon. Lady realise that there is an excellent example of that in North-West Scotland? Beyond


a certain point, north of Aberdeen, petrol costs 1d. a gallon more. This will be the pattern which develops.

Miss Herbison: Indeed, that is the case. Although there are varying prices for petrol in different areas, by and large people have to pay more in the areas to which the hon. Member refers.
When so many problems are being created, both in housing and in transport, in our crowded cities and areas, no Government who are wise should take any step that would encourage people to move away from the sparsely populated areas into heavily populated areas. So much has been done since the war, and particularly in the last 10 years, to make these places more and more sparsely populated that the Government should try to call a halt to this trend.
I was interested in a point which was made by an hon. Member who spoke about the restricted bus and train services. These restrictions have come about during the last 10 years or so. If the Amendment is not accepted—It might not mean much in the end, but it embodies a factor that the Court should take into account—there will be the chance that more and more people will leave these areas.
It is important to remember the many of those who live in sparsely populated areas are agricultural workers, people with a small wage. They may be forestry workers, such as we have in the northern parts of Scotland. Mainly, they have a much lower income than even the average wage-earner in this country. We should care for these people and try to help them in whatever way we can.
There are many other things which could be said, but there are many Amendments still to come. I hope that the case which has been made from both sides has been listened to by the Minister and that he will be able to give us a much better reply than he was able to do on the last Amendment.

Mr. W. Wells: We have had a full and interesting debate and time is passing. I will try to explain shortly why, first, I support the Amendment, but why, secondly, I do not think that it could be accepted in its present form. I hope that the Minister will express his sympathy with

the purpose of the Amendment and say that he will reconsider it and try at the next stage of the Bill to put down an Amendment which, broadly, would achieve the same objectives as those at which the Amendment is aimed.
As we go along with the Bill, with this curious phaseology of our own, which would, no doubt, offend and horrify the ghost of Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch, one might say that the Amendment deals with a situation in which, having passed through the gateways, one has reached the tailpiece. This is the situation with which the Amendment deals. One or more of the three gateways must have been passed before the Amendment would come into play. It seeks to give guidance to the Court that provided one of these three factors—

Mr. Turton: There are five factors.

Mr. Wells: Very well. But there are the three gateways, (a), (b) and (c)—

Mr. Turton: We have passed (d).

Mr. Wells: That is quite right; four gateways. The right hon. Member is quite right, as he nearly always is.

Mr. Temple: We have had an undertaking abort a fifth gateway, on prices.

Mr. Wells: We have had an undertaking, but it is not yet a gateway in existence. The foundations have been laid but the structure has not been completed. One cannot pass through a gateway until the arch is built.
The Amendment introduces a factor which the Court should take into account in deciding what are the interests of the consuming and the using public. The case which has been established in today's argument has amounted in substance to something formidable. It is a common object of social policy, on both sides of the Committee, to encourage people in the sparsely populated areas to continue to live there. If they are to do so, their wants must be satisfied by people such as those to whom the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Sir P. Bishop) referred in his powerful speech. They include the village postmaster, who is earning his living partly by selling stamps but also by dealing with any commodities that are wanted in the village.
Before the debate on the last Amendment, the words which my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) half applied to the Secretary of State were "fanatic" and "doctrinaire". These are not words which to me would have been natural in thinking of the Secretary of State. But if he is unable, having heard the arguments on both sides of the Committee, to say that he will look at this problem again and put into more workable shape the intentions expressed, we shall feel bound to divide in favour of the Amendment.
We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will regard this as a serious attempt to improve the Bill and that we shall be able to pass on to our labours without the interruption of a Division.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Heath: The Amendment, moved with great clarity, has led to an interesting exchange of views about the problems of the sparsely populated areas. I was particularly interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Sir P. Bishop) had to say. He comes from a village which is eight miles from the nearest railway station and in a sparsely populated area. His morning newspaper is delivered before breakfast and without charge for delivery. If he cares to reveal the name of his village it will rapidly become one of the expanded towns of the South-East.
We have also had various expressions on the service which the sparsely populated areas get from small shops and also from mobile shops. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) was really praising the services they receive from both types of shop. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central had a slightly different view. He wanted to ensure the continuation of the local shop against the competition of the travelling shop.
As so often in the past, when looking at this problem we see two intertwining interests. In this case, they are the interest of the shopkeeper and that of the consumer. Probably most hon. Members would agree that, in the sparsely populated areas, the shopkeepers are less anxious about any effects of the removal of r.p.m. because these areas are, on the

whole, without the competition that arises where there is a small shop near a big city or town. It is, therefore, a situation in which probably fewer anxieties are expressed.
Strong competition from the mobile shop undoubtedly has its benefits, but it also helps to deal with some of the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winter-bottom), who feared that we might get a situation in which there was overcharging, which would be against the interest of the consumer. That could be countered by the mobile shop. His fear is also answered by the power that will remain after the Bill is law for maximum prices to be enforced.
I sometimes feel that hon. Members, because it is not specifically set out in the Bill, overlook the fact that maximum prices can be enforced. It is minimum prices which will not be permitted unless exemption is granted. There are many circumstances in which a manufacturer can enforce maximum prices and therefore prevent the events coming about which some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Brightside and the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), fear. These are two aspects of the problem.
It has been said that the purpose in moving the Amendment is to draw attention to the special interests of these areas and ensure that they receive consideration from the Restrictive Practices Court.

Mr. Temple: it is the consumer interest we are thinking of.

Mr. Heath: It is the consumer interest. I quite agree with that. But I can reassure my hon. Friends that, under the 1956 Act, the Court has had exactly such interests put to it and that in a number of cases the arguments have been put, "These are the particular interests of the rural areas", as they have been called—and I fully understand the reasons for my hon. Friend's talking about "sparsely populated areas".
Under the Wholesale Confectioners' Alliance Agreement, in 1960, the arguments were put very forcibly, and put again in the case of the motor vehicle distribution scheme, about the situation of rural or sparsely populated areas. There can be no doubt that not only can


these arguments be put, but that, in the past, the Court has given thorough consideration to them and expressed its opinion on their validity.
I reassure hon. Members that although Clause 5 deals with the interests of consumers as a whole, nevertheless, under the 1956 Act—and the same Court will be involved—the interests of the rural areas have been put before the Court and have received the fullest consideration. The Court has explained its views on them. To go further than that would be to alter the balance of the Clause as far as the rest of the country is concerned.
We should then find that some hon. Members would say that the problems of the small shops near to large shops or to multiples or self-service stores are very great and that the interests of the consumers in those areas should be considered. Or they might say that the interests of consumers in areas not sparsely populated but near big towns should be considered. I think that they will feel that, as the Court in the past has had the interests of rural areas put Before it, has given them full consideration and has explained its attitude in each particular case, my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester will feel that the same situation will exist under Clause 5 and that this will ensure his purpose that the special interests of these areas will always receive the fullest consideration by the Court.
This is the best way in which we could deal with any particular problems in the country as a whole. With the assurance that the interests he has, quite rightly, put to us will be fully considered when the Bill becomes law and that the Court looks at particular requests for exemption, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I apologise for not having been present for the whole of this debate. I was at a meeting of a sub-committee of the Estimates Committee, but I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and the reply of the Secretary of State. As a Scottish Member with a new town in my constituency, I am concerned with his argument that manufacturers who cannot get their products registered will

be able to fix maximum retail prices. That is an assumption which cannot be justified.
I cannot see that any manufacturer who fails to get his r.p.m. supported will insist on retailers having a maximum price on it. If he cannot get exemption I do not believe that he will fix maximum prices for the retailer. I cannot understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument. It seems fantastic.
In the developing new towns—it is true in my constituency, and I am sure that it is true elsewhere; it is certainly true in the Highlands of Scotland—those goods which are marketed without being subject to r.p.m. are invariably dearer than in Glasgow. There is an intense traffic from the new town of Cumbernauld into Glasgow, because everything in Glasgow which is not subject to r.p.m. is 1d., 2d. or 3d. a lb. or 2d. a packet, cheaper than in Cumbernauld.
It has been pointed out to me that a shopkeeper has to pay £500 or £600 in rent in a developing new town which, for the first few years, may have a population of only about 1,000. His turnover is small in the initial stages, and he cannot market his product—

The Chairman: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Member, but the Amendment deals with sparsely populated areas. I hardly think that a new town comes under that heading.

Mr. Bence: That is just it, Sir William. When the area is first designed by an overspill agreement it may be that only 20 families move there from Glasgow. For about three years it is a sparsely populated area. For about three years in Cumbernauld the population was only about 500. The traders in the area said, "We cannot sell at the same price here as we could in Partick." In 1961, there were only 100 houses in the area, and the shopkeepers could not make a living without increasing prices. I suggest that in this context the new town of Cumbernauld is a sparsely populated area.
I am informed that the firm of Boots, the chemists, considers that it is not justified in establishing one of its shops in an area which has less than 22,000 people. I have only heard this; it may not be true. But from practical experience I know that in the rural areas of


Scotland those goods which are not subject to r.p.m. are a little dearer than they are in the heavily populated areas.
I contend that if a manufacturer fails to obtain exemption for his products he will not be interested in fixing a maximum price. He will not fix one price for Glasgow and another for Thurso. Retailers will be free to sell his products at any price they like. The people living in these sparsely populated areas are British citizens and pay the same taxes as other people. They are not second-class citizens.
6.45 p.m.
In my opinion, the provisions as they now stand will amount to another force acting in the direction of the depopulation of our rural areas. More and more people will be driven into the huge conurbations. This may be only a small force in that direction, but it is one more to the already existing number of forces which are driving in this direction. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter, because it is an important issue for people living in the rural areas. This is an important question from the point of view of securing a better redistribution of population from the huge conurbations of London and the Midlands to the rural areas.

Mr. W. Wells: The speech which the right hon. Gentleman made in reply to the debate shows that there is a clear difference in principle between the two sides. The right hon. Gentleman says that a specific Amendment directed to this purpose will upset the balance of the Bill; we believe that a specific Amendment directed to this purpose will make the balance right, and we shall therefore divide the Committee on the Amendment.

Mr. Temple: I have listened with great attention to what has been said on both sides of the Committee in support of the Amendment. I was particularly interested in the summing up of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I was aware of the wording of the 1956 Act, but I was not aware of the weight which the Court attached to this factor when reaching its judgments. Speaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend who has supported me, I can say that we are satisfied that the Court will have regard to these features. I hope that it will do so in the same way as it has done in the past.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 137, Noes 187.

Division No. 83.]
AYES
[6.47 p.m


Ainsley, William
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
King, Dr. Horace


Albu, Austen
Edwards, Waller (Stepney)
Lawson, George


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, Albert
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Beaney, Alan
Fitch, Alan
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Bence, Cyril
Fletcher, Eric
Lipton, Marcus


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Foley, Maurice
Lubbock, Eric


Benson, Sir George
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mabort, Dr. J. Dickson


Blyton, William
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacColl, James


Bottomtey, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Ginsburg, David
McInnes, James


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McLeavy, Frank


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Greenwood, Anthony
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bowles, Frank
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Maifalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfiefd, E.)


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Manuel, Archie


Brockway, A. Fenner
Harper, Joseph
Marsh, Richard


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mason, Roy


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hayman, F. H.
Mayhew, Christopher


Carmichael, Neil
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Millan, Bruce


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Milne, Edward


Chapman, Donald
Hilton, A. V.
Mitchison, G. R.


Collick, Percy
Holman, Percy
Moody, A. S.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Houghton, Douglas
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Crosland, Anthony
Howell, Charles A (Perry Barr)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Crossman, R H. S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, Arthur


Dalyell, Tam
Hunter, A. E.
Mulley, Frederick


Darling, George
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Oliver, G. H.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
O'Malley, B. K.


Dempeey, James
Janner, Sir Barnett
Oswald, Thomas


Diamond, John
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Dodds, Norman
Jeger, George
Paton, John


Doig, Peter
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Peart, Frederick


Driberg, Tom
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Kenyon, Clifford
Popplewell, Ernest




Prentice, R. E.
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Warbey, William


Randall, Harry
Small, William
Weitzman, David


Rankin, John
Snow, Julian
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Sorensen, R. W.
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Steele, Thomas
Willey, Frederick


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Ross, William
Stones, William
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Shinwel, Rt. Hon E.
Stros, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Silkin, John
Taverne, D.



Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thornton, Ernest
Mr. Grey and Mr. Redhead.


Skeffington, Arthur
Thorpe, Jeremy





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Allason, James
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Goodhew, Victor
Percival, Ian


Atkins, Humphrey
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Green, Alan
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Balniel, Lord
Gurden, Harold
Pitt, Dame Edith


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Halt, John (Wycombe)
Pounder, Rafton


Barlow, Sir John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Batsford, Brian
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tulton
Harris, Reader (Heston>
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Berkeley, Humphry
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pym, Francis


Biffen, John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Hay, John
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanett)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Russell, Sir Ronald


Braine, Bernard
Holland, Philip
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Brewis, John
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Seymour, Leslie


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hughes-Young, Michael
Sharples, Richard


Bryan, Paul
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Shaw, M.


Buck, Antony
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, William


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Skeet, T. H. H.


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
James, David
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Campbell, Gordon
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Stainton, Keith


Chataway, Christopher
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Stodart, J. A.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Storey, Sir Samuel


Cleaver, Leonard
Kershaw, Anthony
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cole, Norman
Kirk, Peter
Tapsell, Peter


Cooper, A. E.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Cordle, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Corfield, F. V.
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Coulson, Michael
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sutton C'd field)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Critchley, Julian
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Crowder, F. P.
Longden, Gilbert
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Loveys, w after H.
Turner, Colin


Curran, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Dance, James
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


d'Avidgor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
van Straubentee, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Maltland, Sir John
Walker, Peter


Doughty, Charles
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Drayson, G. B.
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Wall, Patrick


du Cann, Edward
Marten, Nell
Ward, Dame Irene


Duncan, Sir James
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Eden, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Fell, Anthony
Mills, Strartton
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Finlay, Graeme
Miscampbell, Norman
Wise, A. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus
Woodhouse, C. M.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Woodnutt, Mark


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh(Stafford &amp; Stone)
Morrison, John
Woollam, John


Freeth, Denzil
Neave, Airey



Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glover, Sir Douglas
Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Mr. McLaren and Mr. R. M. Elliott.



Orr, Capt. L. p. s.

Mr. W. Wells: I beg to move Amendment No. 100, in page 5, line 21, after "would", to insert "substantially".
The object of this Amendment is to give some clear guidance to the Court in what again, using our curious language in respect of this Bill, I can only describe as the weighting of the tailpiece. In order to see the kind of guidance which we wish to give, as to one set of detriments against another in its entirety, it will be necessary to do that which, Sir William, I apprehend you would say it would be out of order to do, that is, to look at Amendment No. 104. Apprehending that as I do, I will only say that Amendment No. 104 will be moved later and our object is to preclude any fine balancing of interests—

The Chairman: Order. I heard what the hon. and learned Member said. Would it suit the convenience of the Committee to take the two Amendments together?

Mr. Wells: I doubt it. This is a small Amendment. Amendment No. 104 is rather a large one and I think that it would be better to consider that Amendment alone.

The Chairman: So be it.

Mr. Wells: As I was saying, our object is to preclude any fine balancing of interests and to give a clear guidance to the Court that the interests of the public as consumers or users shall be paramount, subject to the considerations to which reference is made in Amendment No. 104.
The tailpiece says that when an order is being made directing that goods of any class should be exempted goods, and it appears to the Court that one of the four conditions which we now have enumerated in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) are satisfied, the Court then tries to see whether the resulting detriment would outweigh any detriment to the public as consumers or users. In order to avoid this process of fine balancing we wish to insert this word to make abundantly clear the paramount nature of the consumer's interest, We think it particularly important that guidance of this kind should be given, the Court being constituted, as the Restricted Practices Court is normally,

of one and sometimes of two judges and three or four other members. Whereas with one judge sitting alone this fine balancing might very quickly be resolved, with a larger Court it may be a more difficult and time-consuming process.
This obviously is not the kind of Amendment about which one is dogmatic. We offer it as a small contribution hoping that it will improve the Bill. We offer it respectively to the attention of the Secretary of State and his advisers.

7.0 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edward du Cann): Our main discussion in relation to Clause 5 in considering the number of Amendments we have had to look at, has been about proposals designed to widen the gateways. This proposal is designed to narrow the gateways to some extent. We think that it would make it unreasonably difficult for applicants to establish a case for exemption. Since the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) appears to disagree with me when I say that, perhaps I had better spell the matter out more carefully.

Mr. W. Wells: I disagree only with what the hon. Gentleman says about narrowing the gateways. It does not affect the gateways, but makes it more difficult to establish a case.

Mr. du Cann: In that case we are agreed. I appreciate that the Amendment is concerned with the tailpiece and not with the gateways, but I repeat that the majority of our discussion has been about widening the gateways and making it easier for applicants to obtain exemption. The effect of this Amendment would inevitably be to make it more difficult for applicants to obtain exemptions, not through the gateways, but through the tailpiece. In our opinion it would make it unreasonably difficult. For that reason I must advise the Committee to reject the Amendment, unless the hon. and learned Member sees fit to withdraw it in the light of a later discussion we are to have, which, as he said, concerns a wider and more important point.
In courtesy to him and to the Committee, I must say a further word about this Amendment. In drafting Clause 5,


which, as the hon. and learned Member and the Committee will know, has not been the easiest of exercises, we have done our best to strike a fair balance. Some say that in suggesting that resale price maintenance in general is not in the public interest we have perhaps gone a little too far. Other hon. Members have said that putting the onus on the applicant to justify r.p.m. in particular trades as in the public interest is also going a little too far.
We do not take that view. We think we have struck a fair balance, but this Amendment, as the hon. and learned Member admitted and we obviously agree, takes the argument a little further and might even upset the balance. We have asked the Committee to reject Amendments which would weaken Clause 5. In the light of what I have said I ask the Committee not to press an Amendment which would strengthen Clause 5 and which would particularly put an undue burden upon applicants. There has been talk about justice in this matter. This Committee is seeking to establish justice. We believe that in general we have the balance about right and we think that this Amendment would upset it.
The hon. and learned Member said a little about his fears in relation to the operation of the Restrictive Practices Court. He will understand that one of the matters we have had most carefully under consideration is how the Court would operate and whether these criteria would put the Court into any difficulty. My clear opinion—and he will know that I prefer to state clear opinions when I hold them—is that this would not be so. I think that the working of the Court at present to a large extent justifies what I am saying. I think, therefore, that the fears the hon. and learned Member expressed so clearly are not likely to be borne out in practice. For these additional reasons, I hope he will not seek to press the Amendment, or that alternatively the Committee will reject it.

Mr. W. Wells: Certainly I shall not seek to press this Amendment. There comes a limit beyond which one cannot go about drafting. It may be that, at a later stage, when we have discussed Amendment No. 104, the hon. Gentleman may perhaps think that the balance would not be so disturbed as he now thinks it

would be. In all the circumstances, beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Jay: I beg to move Amendment No. 104, in page 5, line 25, at the end to insert:
Provided that in any case where the detriment referred to in paragraphs (a) or (b) or (c) by itself may not outweigh, but such detriment taken together with the detriment (if any) of suppliers or dealers or distributive workers in the conduct of their business in default of a system of minimum resale prices applicable as aforesaid does outweigh the last-mentioned detriment to the public as consumers an order may he made under this section.
This is a somewhat more substantial Amendment than the last. The Minister of State has said that we ought to strike a balance and that he is trying to achieve justice. I suggest that this Amendment gives him an excellent opportunity to achieve greater justice in the Bill. We have already had a discussion which elicited the fact that throughout the Clause—the gateways, tailpieces and all—the Court is not at present empowered to take account of the interests of the retailer. The Minister and the Committee rejected our main proposal to enable it to do that, but this is a more modest proposal which would enable the interests of the retailer in certain circumstances to be taken into account.
The Bill refers to harm to the consumer. Perhaps I may use the word "harm" rather than "detriment" as this is Shakespeare's birthday. I do not think the word "detriment" occurs very often in the plays of Shakespeare. In paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), the harm which the consumer is presumed to suffer by paying higher prices as a result of the retention of r.p.m. is taken into account. It is one harm to the consumer weighed against another harm to the consumer and no one else's harm or benefit is taken into account.
Under this Amendment if the harm to the consumer under the gateways (a), (b) and (c) plus any harm done to retainers taken together were to exceed the harm lone to the consumer as a result of higher prices, the case would be made cut. That seems reasonable. This would, be a very modest way of taking into account any harm done to the retailer by the abandonment of resale price maintenance in a particular


trade. It would still provide for the doctrine to which the right hon. Gentleman is dearly attached, and which on the whole we accept, that the consumer's interests should be paramount, but it would not go to the extreme length of saying that no one else's interests should be taken into account.

Mr. Heath: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has moved the Amendment briefly because, as he indicated, the arguments with which it is concerned have already been put fully on an earlier Amendment which the Committee rejected. This Amendment takes the same factors into account and would give a slightly different emphasis from the previous Amendment. The principles which I enunciated earlier, which other hon. Members discussed and which underlie the Bill, still apply. For that reason, various aspects of the Amendment should not be accepted.
I was interested that in the right hon. Gentleman's previous speech he made no effort to answer any of the reasons which I put forward about why this general principle underlies the Bill. When I said to the right hon. Gentleman that more than 60 per cent. of the retail trade was carried out on the basis that it must be of interest to the consumer and that if it does not satisfy the consumer it must change its form or go out of business, the right hon. Gentleman had no comment to make and did not try to answer the point. I asked the right hon. Gentleman why, if r.p.m. is to be removed, exactly the same situation should not apply also to particular items, goods or trades which at present have r.p.m. To that I received no reply.
The logical conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that if that approach is to be made to items which have r.p.m., the other goods which at present do not have it should have the opportunity of coming to the Court and asking for protection on the ground that it should take into account the interests of various other bodies even though they are not satisfying the consumer and are about to go out of business. I do not think that anybody would suggest that that should occur. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has made clear on various occasions that

he thinks that, In general, r.p.m. should go.
If one carries that argument to its logical conclusion, to the area of trade which does not at present have r.p.m., one sees that the general thesis underlying the Bill is fully justified. It is not in any way fanatical or doctrinaire. It is one of the aspects of business and manufacture in this and in every country, particularly in every free society in which the consumer has the right of choice and of judgment.
The right hon. Gentleman did not wish to prolong the debate on the Amendment and I have no desire either to continue it at length. The same considerations as I placed before the Committee earlier apply. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Amendment is a more modest approach, but I ask the Committee to bear in mind its previous decision and not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Jay: I must slightly prolong the debate in view of what the Minister has said. The reason why I did not answer his curious argument about 40 per cent. of retail trade being under r.p.m. and 60 per cent. being outside it was, first, that I wished to be brief, but my main reason was that it was totally irrelevant to the issue. The right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated that this is not a general argument about whether r.p.m. is beneficial or over what sphere of trade it operates. We are discussing what criteria are to be taken into account if the Restrictive Practices Court is to take a decision and if the law is to intervene.
Over that area of trade, which the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt correctly, states is 60 per cent., r.p.m. has gone in any event. The law does not intervene and business and economic forces operate one way or the other. That is not relevant to the question of what criteria the Court should take into account in the sector within which it is being asked to reach a decision and to say how the law should apply. We are here considering the narrow question of what interest should be taken into account when the Court has to make up its mind and say over what area Section 25 of the 1956 Act should be enforced.
I come back, therefore, to the argument. It seems to me to be an extreme


view to take that when that decision has to be taken, and when the Court is giving judgment, the interests of everybody except the consumer should be totally ignored. It is wholly irrelevant to say that there is another 60 per cent. of trade over which these circumstances do not arise because no r.p.m. exists. That was why I did not answer the right hon. Gentleman earlier. I make this observation only because he did not appear to understand the point at issue.

7.15 p.m.

I do not prolong the debate further except to say that the argument still seems to me to be valid. By refusing, not merely the main preposition, but even a modest example of it, the right hon. Gentleman has shown how extreme and doctrinaire he still is on this point.

Question put,That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 124. Noes 183.

Division No. 84.]
AYES
[7.15 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.


Allen, Scholefield {Crewe)
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
O'Malley, B. K.


Beaney, Alan
Harper, Joseph
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bence, Cyril
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Paton, John


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Hayman, F. H.
Pavitt, Laurence


Benson, Sir George
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Peart, Frederick


Blyton, William
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pentland, Norman


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hilton, A. V.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Bowden, Rt. Hn, H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Holman, Percy
Randall, Harry


Bowles, Frank
Houghton, Douglas
Rankin, John


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.


Bradley, Tom
Hunter, A. E.
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rose, William


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Sir Barnett
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Silkin, John


Chapman, Donald
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Collick, Percy
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, Clifford
Skeffington, Arthur


Crosland, Anthony
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lawson, George
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Small, William


Darling, George
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Snow, Julian


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Steele, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lipton, Marcus
Stones, William


Dempsey, James
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Diamond, John
MacColl, James
Taverne, D.


Dodds, Norman
McInnes, James
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Doig, Peter
McLeavy, Frank
Thornton, Ernest


Driberg, Tom
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wainwright, Edwin


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Warbey, William


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Manuel, Archie
Weitzman, David


Evans, Albert
Marsh, Richard
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fitch, Alan
Mason, Roy
Willey, Frederick


Fletcher, Eric
Millan, Bruce
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Foley, Maurice
Milne, Edward
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mitchison, G. R.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Moody, A. S.



Ginsburg, David
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, Arthur
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Grey, Charles
Mulley, Frederick
Mr. Whitlock.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Noer-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)





NOES


Agnew, sir Peter
Bourne-Arton, A.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)


Allason, James
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Cleaver, Leonard


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Box, Donald
Cole, Norman


Atkins, Humphrey
Braine, Bernard
Cooper, A. E.


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Brewis, John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Cordle, John


Barlow, Sir John
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Corfield, F. V.


Batsford, Brian
Bryan, Paul
Coulson, Michael


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Buck, Antony
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Critchley, Julian


Biffen, John
Burden, F. A.
Crowder, F. P.


Bigge-Davison, John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Cunningham, Sir Knox


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Campbell, Gordon
Curran, Charles


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Channon, H. P. G.
Dance, James


Black, Sir Cyril
Chataway, Christopher
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry


Bossom Hon. Clive
Chichester-Clark, R.
Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.




Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rees-Davies W.R. (Isle of Thanet)


Doughty, Charles
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


du Cann, Edward
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Duncan, Sir James
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Russell, Sir Ronatd


Eden, Sir John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kershaw, Anthony
Scott-Hopkins, James


Elliott, R. W. (Newcute-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kirk, Peter
Seymour, Leslie


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evolyn
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Sharples, Richard


Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, M.


Finlay, Graeme
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Shepherd, William


Fisher, Nigel
Litchfield, Capt. John
Street, T. H. H.


Fietcher-Cooke, Charles
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Freeth, Denzil
Loveys, Walter H.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stainton, Keith


Gammans, Lady
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Stodart, J. A.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Storey, Sir Samuel


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Maitland, Sir John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Tapsell, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Marshall, sir Douglas
Temple, John M.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Marten, Neil
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Green, Alan
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Thorpe, Jeremy


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mills, Strattom
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Montgomery, Fergus
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Harrison, Brian (Maidon)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Turner, Colin


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morrison, John
Turton, Rt. Hon, R. H.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Neave, Airey
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hay, John
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Pannel, Norman (Kirkdate)
Wade, Donald


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Hirst, Geoffrey
Percival, Ian
Wall, Patrick


Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Peyton, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Hocking, Philip N.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Whiteiaw, William


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quinton
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Holland, Philip
Pitt, Dame Edith
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Holt, Arthur
Pounder, Rafton
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hornby, R, P.
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Wise, A. R.


Hughes-Young, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Woodnutt, Mark


Hurd, Sir Anthony
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Woollam, John


Hutchiaon, Michael Clark
Pym, Francis



Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter
TELLERS FOB THE NOES:


James, David
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Mr. McLaren and Mr. Hugh Rees.

Mr. W. Wells: I beg to move Amendment No. 105, in page 5, line 25, at the end to insert:
(3) Any order made under this section directing that any goods shall be exempted goods may provide that terms or conditions establishing minimum prices to be charged in the resale of goods shall not be enforceable against third parties.
With this Amendment we pass with some relief from the tailpiece and come to a proposed new subsection. Whatever heat may be engendered about other parts of the Bill, I shall not seek to engender any over this. The Amendment seeks to empower the Court to make a type of order which, under the Bill as it stands it has no power to do. Under the Bill as it stands, the Court has simply the alternative of making an order that a certain class of goods are to be exempted goods, or refusing to make such an order.
We believe that there is a case for making an intermediate order to the effect that the goods are exempted goods

for a limited purpose, leaving third parties completely at liberty to trade without regard to the terms of the contract providing a minimum price. In the case of a contract for the sale of goods at a minimum price, if the Court is empowered to make this type of order the buyer will be bound not to sell above the minimum resale price. We think that this could be a reasonable provision in a number of cases. After all, it is desirable to maintain, so far as possible and reasonable, the sanctity of contract. This is what the Amendment seeks to do.
If the Amendment were accepted, the Court would have the power to say that third parties would not be bound by the provisions of a contract as to minimum resale price, but the parties who entered into the contract, presumably with their eyes open, and understanding what they were doing, would be bound.
I would not expect the Secretary of State, whether the idea appeals to him as reasonable and as having possible


utility or not, to accept the Amendment in its present form. I can say without fear of contradiction, since I drafted it myself, that it is badly drafted. I realised this looking at it in the cold light of day, which is not the time of day at which it was drafted. I am not very proud of it, However, I believe that the underlying idea may be useful for certain limited purposes. I commend it to the Committee's attention.

Mr. Heath: I listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) with care, because I was very interested, on seeing the Amendment, to try to ascertain what the purpose of it was. What it means is that the Court shall be given a discretionary power to repeal Section 25 of the 1956 Act.

Mr. W. Wells: indicated assent.

Mr. Heath: I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me. I was hoping that he might provide some specific instances in which he thought that such a power would be useful, because, considering it generally, I have found it rather difficult to think what would be the purpose of the Court having this power. If the Court decides to give an exemption, it is deciding that the maintenance of fixed prices in these conditions is in the public interest. Its decision amounts to deciding that the right to resale price maintenance should be granted for that purpose. As the Bill stands this means that the right to enforce this would go with it.
7.30 p.m.
The Amendment, by repealing Section 25 of the 1956 Act, would, in this case, remove that right of enforcement. I cannot see the point of having an exemption from the Court and then giving the Court power to remove the right of enforcement, although that is what the Amendment is designed to achieve. The hon. and learned Member did not demonstrate any cases in which he thought it would be useful for the Court to have this power, and my approach is that if the Court has given an exemption—and considers it right that r.p.m. should continue in a particular case—the right of enforcement should remain and that there is nothing to be gained by giving power to the Court to remove it.
I suggest, therefore, that the Amendment does not give the Court any sort of discretionary powers by which it would take lotion after a certain time has elapsed or after any other point. It would give the Court power which is not required useful or even justifiable, and I suggest that it is not necessary to insert it in the Bill.

Mr. W. Wells: As I pointed out, I am not anxious to press the Amendment. In the Bill we are interfering with the sanctity of contracts to a considerable extent and some of my hon. Friends and I thought it reasonable that the Bill should provide for a neutral territory, so to speak, where the Court sees no reason to interfere with a contract but does not think it appropriate to extend the right of enforcement against third parties.
This was a novel conception introduced by Section 25 of the 1956 Act and we thought it a reasonable idea worth considering that the Court, in certain circumstances, might think this an appropriate order to make. Time will show whether the right hon. Gentleman or my hon. Friends and I were right. However, this is not a matter of vital moment and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Jay: I beg to move Amendment No. 107, in page 5, line 25, at the end to insert:
(3) in any case where the Restrictive Practices Court on a reference made to it determines that no order under this section is to be made in respect of goods of a specified class, the Court may nonetheless, if it satisfied that special circumstances make it reasonable so to do, make an order that the provisions of section 2 of this Act shall not from a date to be specified in the order apply to any supplier of that class of goods in respect of such goods.
This Amendment is similar to the last in the sense that it seeks to give the Court rather more discretion than the Minister is at present giving it. However, it is a suggestion which we would wish to press rather further because it appears to contain a substantial point and it is only due to the rigours of the time-table that we are reaching this matter at this stage in the Committee proceedings.
I said on Second Reading that the Minister has never appreciated in our discussion that he has an alternative


to the action he is taking in the Bill. He could have introduced a Measure which would have simply repealed Section 25 of the 1965 Act with, no doubt, certain provision for exemptions or exceptions, and have left it at that. That would have taken us to a situation which we did not have before 1956 because then the collective boycott was legal, and the situation we have not had since 1956, because since then we have had Section 25 enforced. It would have been a situation in which the law intervened neither way—the law neither enabled a manufacturer to enforce his prices on the retailer, nor did it do what the Minister is now seeking to do; to compel a manufacturer and supplier in certain circumstances to trade with the retailer even though he may not wish to do so. We discussed that at some length previously.
The Minister could have stopped at that point without introducing Clause 2. I realise that this is an arguable proposition. I understand his argument for going beyond that point—that if one took away the legal power of enforcement from the manufacturer and left it in his business or economic power to withdraw his supplies, he would have been able to enforce his fixed resale prices not by law but by the threat of at least a boycott. I do not argue that and it may be that in some cases he would have been able to do that. Nevertheless, I think that the Minister has been too ready to assume that this would have been possible in virtually all cases and that, because of that, we had to load the onerous obligation of Clause 2 on the supplier in every case, in addition to taking away from him the legal right he now has under the 1956 Act.
There might have been a halfway house established here, and what we suggest in the Amendment is that in certain cases the Court might think that there was no case for deciding against the trade or group of manufacturers in question, but that the legal power of enforcement should not be retained under Section 25.
It might help if I give an example. The Secretary of State argued his reason for imposing Clause 2. He said that the removal of r.p.m. in a particular case would be undermined because it would

be enforced by the withholding of supplies rather than by the law. There may be circumstances when a Court would think it unlikely that that would happen. The Court might consider it wiser and more liberal—if I may use that word in this context—to take away the power of legal enforcement and not to impose the additional obligation not to withhold supplies. This is a complicated matter and it is difficult to explain it without the use of double negatives. The Court might decide not to apply Clause 2, because there was no need for it. Thus it would be open to the Court, if circumstances were such later, to impose it if it were necessary.
I realise that this complicates the Bill even further. Hon. Members may say that it is complicated enough already. Nevertheless, there is a case for considering this in detail and had we had the opportunity earlier we would have debated this subject at greater length.
The essential point is that there may be no need to impose the obligations contained in Clause 2 unless circumstances and experience show that that is necessary. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think this matter over, particularly since I have made a reasonably clear case for the Amendment. It is a substantial one and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to meditate further on this issue in the period of a full week which will occur before the Report stage.

Mr. Arthur Holt: rise in an effort to get this matter clarified because I am in a bit of a muddle over this Amendment. It appeared from the speech of the Secretary of State when he replied to the previous Amendment that his remarks could have been made in reply to the Amendment which I understand we are discussing. If so, may we dispense with a further reply from the Minister?

Mr. Heath: I have carefully checked and I did make the correct reply to the previous Amendment. Indeed, this Amendment is the reverse of the coin. The last one dealt with the case where an exemption had been granted but where the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) was suggesting that the right of enforcement should not go with it. I said that there was no point


in having that Amendment. In this case an exemption has not been granted and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is suggesting that the supplier should have the right to withhold supplies nevertheless.
My objection to this is that this is an indirect way of maintaining r.p.m. Where the Court has said that it is not in the public interest that it should be maintained, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North would give the supplier the right indirectly, to maintain it. That is why the Committee should not approve this Amendment.
The only reason that I can detect in the right hon. Gentleman's speech for doing this is that he says that experience may show that it might not be necessary for resale price maintenance to go for us to have Clause 2 under which action could be taken against the supplier who withholds supplies. I should not have thought that it was wise to take that risk. I should have thought that experience would have shown that, so determined are some people to maintain resale price maintenance, they would do everything possible to keep it. It has been very necessary to keep Clause 2, whatever we may think about the details of it, which we have discussed in this Committee. I would suggest that this is the reverse of the case which we were discussing previously, and that the insertion of this Amendment would be no more justified than the last. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will pursue the same course as his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Walsall, North and withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Jay: May I tell the Minister, briefly, why I do not agree with him? The fallacy in his argument is that he assumes in every case that a manufacturer or supplier would be in an economic position to withhold supplies. He assumes that wherever he wishes to maintain resale price maintenance, and has lost the legal power to do so, it would be entirely in his hands, in the business circumstances of the case, to withhold supplies. That does not follow at all. This might be so in some cases, but it is quite unsound to assume that this would be so in all cases.
The manufacturer or supplier has to carry on business and sell his goods somewhere. It all depends on the rela-

tive bargaining strength and whether the manufacturer or the retailer is in more of a monopoly position. It depends whether the retailer is small and the manufacturer large, or vice versa. There might be all sorts of circumstances connected with it. I am very modestly and, I think, realistically assuming that circumstances will differ from case to case, whereas the Minister is assuming that in every case it would be open to the manufacturer to enforce resale price maintenance by withholding his supplies regardless of the business situation. That is an unsound assumption. It would be more realistic, more empirical and more flexible if we allowed for the fact that circumstances differ and enabled the Court to make its decisions accordingly.
In my opinion—I know that the Minister will not agree—I think, again, that he is rather doctrinaire and that my hon. Friends and I have shown a more flexible and practical attitude. I hope that he may reflect on this point a little more before we finish with the Bill, but meanwhile, for the reasons that I have given, I must advise my hon. Friends to press for the Amendment in order to encourage the Minister to do so.

Mr. Heath: When the right hon. Gentleman presses an Amendment to a Division then the Minister in charge of the Bill is always exempt from giving any further consideration to it. That is well known in this Committee. There have been cases, and there was one very famous case of which I read an account the other day in which a French manufacturer, Coty's, was deliberately prepared to damage itself to a great extent by withholding supplies over the whole of the United states in order ultimately to be able to enforce price maintenance. In fact, it succeeded. One of the members of the firm recently delivered a lecture to demonstrate exactly how it was done.
The right hon. Gentleman is saying that, because there are some firms who are not able to do this, we should withdraw the power of Clause 2 from the Bill. If they are unable to do it, I do not see any reason why we should withdraw it, and it is there as a safeguard.

Mr. Jay: I do not wish to carry on an altercation with the right hon. Gentleman, but we are not seeking—that is the


misunderstanding of the Amendment—to withdraw the powers of Clause 2 altogether. We are saying that the Court should have the option to impose or not to impose it. I think that the Minister, in the example he has given, proves my point. He said that there was a firm, which, despite considerable damage to itself was willing to withhold supplies over a long period, because it believed that, finally, that would be in its own interest.
7.45 p.m.
That admits that there could be considerable damage in withholding supplies, and it is, therefore, highly probable, that in certain circumstances, the damage could be too great for the manufacturer to sustain. I admit that there may be some circumstances in which that may not be so. Therefore, I think that our approach is more flexible and

appropriate to the various circumstances of the resale and wholesale trade.

Mr. W. Wells: As my right hon Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) suggests, it is only in special circumstances that the Court would make the order. Clearly, in the case which the right hon. Gentleman has cited, there would be a most strong set of special circumstances against the Court making the kind of order which my right hon. Friend's Amendment contemplates. The Amendment would leave, as my right hon. Friend said, a measure of flexibility about the application of the orders, which we think is desirable, and that is why we are pressing for its acceptance.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 123, Noes 187.

Division No. 85.]
AYES
[7.46 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Harper, Joseph
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hart, Mrs, Judith
Oliver, G. H.


Beaney, Alan
Hayman, F. H.
O'Malley, B. K.


Bence, Cyril
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Paton, John


Benson, Sir George
Hilton, A. V.
Pavitt, Laurence


Blyton, William
Holman, Percy
Peart, Frederick


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Houghton, Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hughes, Emrye (S. Ayrshire)
Purser, Cmdr. Harry


Bowles, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, Harry


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hunter, A. E.
Rankin, John


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Redhead, E. C.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hynd, John (Attercllffe)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Sir Barnett
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Ross, William


Chapman, Donald
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Silkin, John


Collick, Percy
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Silverman, Sidney (Nelson)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, Clifford
Skeffington, Arthur


Crosland, Anthony
King, Dr. Horace
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lawson, George
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)


Dalyell, Tam
Ledger, Ron
Small, William


Darling, George
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, Julian


Davles, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Steele, Thomas


Dempsey, James
Lipton, Marcus
Stones, William


Diamond, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Dodds, Norman
MacColl, James
Taverne, D.


Doig, Peter
McInnes, James
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Driberg, Tom
McLeavy, Frank
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Wainwrigtit, Edwin


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mallalleu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Warbey, William


Evans, Albert
Manuel, Archie
Weitzman, David


Fitch, Alan
Marsh, Richard
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fietcher, Eric
Mason, Roy
Whitlock, William


Foley, Maurice
Millan, Bruce
Willey, Frederick


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Milne, Edward
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Ginsburg, David
Moody, A. S.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moyle, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Mulley, Frederick
Mr. Charles A. Howell and




Mr. Grey.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton


Allason, James
Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Barlow, Sir John
Biffen, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Batsford, Brian
Biggs-Davison, John




Bishop, Sir Patrick
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Hay, John
Pounder, Rafton


Bourne-Arton, A.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Powell, Bt. Hon. J. Enoch


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Box, Donald
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Braine, Bernard
Hirst, Geoffrey
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Brewis, John
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pym, Francis


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hocking, Philip N.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quintin
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bryan, Paul
Holland, Philip
Rees-Davies, W. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Buck, Antony
Holt, Arthur
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Bullua, Wing Commander Eric
Hornby, R. P.
Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's &amp; S'tn'ld)


Burden, F. A.
Hughes-Young, Michael
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Campbell, Gordon
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Russell, Sir Ronald


Channon, H P. G.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Chataway, Christopher
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sharples, Richard


Cole, Norman
James, David
Shaw, M.


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Shepherd, William


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cordle, John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Corfield, F. V.
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Coulson, Michael
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stalnton, Keith


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kershaw, Anthony
Stevens, Geoffrey


Critehley, Julian
Kirk, Peter
Stodart, J. A.


Crowder, F. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Storey, Sir Samuel


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Curran, Charles
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Tapsell, Peter


Dance, James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Temple, John M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Loveys, Walter H.
Thomas, Sir LeeKe (Canterbury)


Digby, Simon WingfieCd
Lubbock, Eric
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Doughty, Charles
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Drayson, G. B.
McLaren, Martin
Thorpe, Jeremy


du Cann, Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N. Ayrs)
Tllney, John (Wavertree)


Duncan, Sir James
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Eden, Sir Join
Maitland, Sir John
Turner, Colin


Elliot, Capt. Waiter (Carshalton)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Elliott, R.W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Marten, Neil
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fell, Anthony
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Finlay, Graeme
Mawby, Ray
Vickers, Miss Joan


Fisher, Nigel
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wade, Donald


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Freeth, Denzil
Mills, Stratton
Wall, Patrick


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Miscampbell, Norman
Ward, Dame Irene


Gammans, Lady
Montgomery, Fergus
Whitelaw, William


Glover, Sir Douglas
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Clyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Morrison, John
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Goodhew, Vlotoc
Neave, Airev
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Wise, A. R.


Green, Atan.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Woodhouse, C. M.


Gurden, Harod
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Woodnutt, Mark


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Percival, Ian
Mr. Chichester-Clark and


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Peyton, John
Mr. Hugh Rees.


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I want to speak only briefly on a residual point, as it were, left over from yesterday's major discussion on the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). It is what is known for short as the "any goods" point, and will be recognised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under that appellation.
In yesterday's debate I said:
Then there is the possibility that abrogation of resale price maintenance might result

in a diminution in the quality or variety of other goods socked—not the goods actually covered by the resale price maintenance agreement but other goods. If a general uncertainty was introduced into a retailer's position by such abrogation, it might cause him to stock less of some other article not actually covered by the agreement. Under the Bill that is not a matter which he could deploy before the court, but under the different and wider language of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act he could do SO."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1964; Vol. 693, c. 1320.]
My right hon. Friend's reference to this aspect of the matter may be found in col. 1392 of yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT. I hive read it and, with great respect, I must say that I find it a little


less clear than most of my right hon. Friend's observations. The Secretary of State made some notable and helpful and very proper proposals for improvement to this Clause in response to the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend, but he did not, as I read this part of the OFFICIAL REPORT, give any undertaking, or even make any suggestion, that he might pursue some further thinking in regard to this point. I may be wrong about that; my right hon. Friend may intend to do so, and my purpose now is to ask that he will do so.
If my right hon. Friend has it in mind that the widening of the gateway in this way might lead to detriment to the purchasers of other goods in other establishments and that that consideration would not be taken into account in the balancing exercise of the tailpiece as at present drafted, it would, of course, be necessary also, if he does anything to expand the reference to goods so as to admit of the deployment of this argument within the gateway provisions, to expand the reference to goods in the tailpiece so that the balancing exercise could take account of any consequential detriment caused thereby.
In that context, I hope that my right hon. Friend will look further at this point, because there were so many matters dealt with in yesterday's major discussion that, reading in the OFFICIAL REPORT what he then said, I feel that, perhaps, he has not as yet done full justice to this argument.

Mr. Michael Foot: Like the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), I intervene in an attempt to clarify some of yesterday's discussion, which is a proper purpose when we are discussing whether the Clause, as amended, should stand part of the Bill—particularly as we have some hon. Members present whom we did not have throughout our earlier proceedings.
In that respect, I am particularly glad to see the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise), who was, at an earlier stage of the Bill, the leader of the so-called "Tory rebels"—the Robespierre from Rugby. Some of us had wondered what had happened to him. We thought that he had been guillotined, perhaps, but we

are glad to see him there, with his head still neatly on his shoulders, and hope to hear from him.
The debate yesterday, however, which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), was by common consent one of the most important debates that we have had in the whole of these proceedings. Certainly on the test of time taken to reach our conclusion it was a most important debate and was so considered on both sides of the Committee.
8.0 p.m.
It was remarkable for this state of affairs—that the right hon. Gentleman, who in introducing the Amendment was backed by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), made a pretty formidable case for an alteration in the Bill, and when we reached the end of the proceedings both of them proclaimed themselves in effect satisfied by what the Minister had said. It might be deduced by innocent people from that development that the Minister had made a substantial concession, but the Minister, of course, throughout the proceedings—and I admire him for it—has insisted that he will make no more than minor changes. Therefore, on the face of it, there seems to be some discrepancy between what the Minister thought he was conceding and what hon. and right hon. Members opposite thought they were getting. This is what I want to clear up before we proceed further with the Bill.
I admit immediately the well nigh staggering proposition that in my own interpetation of what the Minister said at the end of his speech I made a mistake. If I misinterpreted what he said it is no doubt chiefly my fault, but it is also partly the Minister's fault because his speech took a rather curious form. He spent most of his speech—and if I may say so without patronising the right hon. Gentleman it was most skilfully done—in reducing the temperature and getting the Committee into a much calmer frame of mind, or, as it was put, removing the excitement from the debate. The right hon. Gentleman has done it on several occasions before with great skill. There is nothing like being in charge of a bad Bill for improving the cunning of Parliamentarians, and the


right hon. Gentleman did extremely well, but by the end he got us all into such a soporific state that we were unable to judge what was happening.
The right hon. Gentleman's speech was of a. curious form because he approached the subject from a whole series of different angles and then compressed his concession into the last minute. At one time I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was under the misapprehension that he was introducing the Budget and was saving his concessions to the end. As we have not had a proper Budget this year it was a reasonable thing for him to do, and I do not complain on that score at all.
Let us see what he conceded and whether it meets the substantial case made by his right hon. Friends, and, in particular the point with which I was concerned, which is the future of the book trade. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the criteria which are provided under the Clause and said:
I feel that we ought to give full consideration to the question of including an item about prices among the criteria.
The right hon. Gentleman is going to give full consideration—that is not yet an absolute commitment. Later in his speech he said:
We will give careful consideration to the framing of the wording in order to deal with the question of price.
Then the right hon. Gentleman made a slight retraction from his original comprehensive promise and said:
I would not think that a standard price is a question which should come into this. The argument put forward is that the public likes a standard price, but the general view now is that the public's attitude has changed.
That slightly mitigates prices being put forward as one of the considerations determining criteria under the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman then said:
It is a question of a permanent rise in prices which some hon. Members fear would be the result of the abolition of r.p.m. It is to this point that we should give attention between now and Report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1964; Vol. 693, c. 1401–2.]
Therefore, what the book trade would have to prove in order to get through this gateway is that if r.p.m. was not permitted to it there would be a permanent general rise in prices.
I am not sure whether the book trade can prove that exactly, and I would

have preferred to see the Clause not as tightly drawn as that. I should have thought that if the book trade could prove that there might be a considerable increase in prices of certain types of books, the trade should be able to retain its r.p.m. on that claim. I imagine that the Minister would not go further than the concession he appeared to make to the Committee. He might diminish it, but he is not likely to be more generous when he looks at it on Report than he was when he was trying to get out of his difficulties yesterday. We must, therefore, look at these words carefully and also look at them in the light of what was demanded by some of us on both sides of the Committee.
I drew the attention of the Committee yesterday to the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), the previous Attorney-General, whose opinion on these matters obviously is bound to be taken into account. He said, before the concession by the Minister:
The conclusion on the book case is that it could just get through on the quality. I think that it could not get through on the other points which the Restrictive Practices Court found in its favour."—[OFFICAL REPORT. 22nd April, 1964; Vol. 693, c. 1353.]
That is a view which was disputed by the right hon. Gentleman even before he came to the subsequent concession, but we have to take into account that there is a difference of view between experts as to whether the book trade would have been able to get through under the previous criteria which the right hon. Gentleman had granted.
We might look again at the case made by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton who moved the Amendment, again referriitg to the book trade. This was late at night and I make no apology for quoting, it again because, as I have complained before, the right hon. Gentleman was obliged by the Government to make a formidable case—as it was then—against the Government at a late hour. I cannot think that this was arranged without the guidance of the Patronage Secretary, but it was not a good way of truncating discussion.
I do not apologise for quoting what the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said because so few hon. Members were able to hear it. In the course


of his speech he quoted from a speech made by the Minister of Defence when he was President of the Board of Trade in a debate on the Restrictive Practices Act, about which the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East was such an authority. In moving the Amendment, the right hon. Gentleman quoted, as reported in col. 1245 of yesterday's HANSARD, what the present Minister of Defence said about the necessity for a measure to protect the book trade:
Without this Clause the net book agreement would be banned. It would be presumed to be contrary to the public interest… It is absolutely essential, for the reasons which I have mentioned, that we should have a Clause of this kind and that a proper opportunity should be given to people to argue that the removal of the restriction would cause specific and substantial damage to the consumer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 650.]
I ask the Committee to note the words
It is absolutely essential…that we should have a Clause of this kind…
that is, a Clause of the nature of the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman moved at the beginning, of our debate yesterday, which was in almost the exact words of the Restrictive Practices Act to which the Minister of Defence was referring in his speech. It was pertinent that the right hon. Gentleman should quote a member of the Government as saying that we need a Clause of this nature to protect the book trade, but we have no Clause of this nature in the Bill, and even with the concession made by the Minister we still have not a gateway as wide as that asked for by hon. and right hon. Members opposite. I am not denying that the right hon. Gentleman made a certain concession. It would be absurd to deny that. If yesterday I did not think that he had made as big a concession as it now appears he made, I am very apologetic, but when I examine the words in detail I see that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen them very carefully.
When he considers this matter before the Report stage and when he comes back with an Amendment incorporating the pledge that he has given, we might find that it is hedged around at least as much as he hedged around his peroration when he delivered it to the

Committee yesterday. If he were to do that, I think he would—unconsciously, no doubt—have misled the House, but, even more important, he would have put the book trade once again in jeopardy. Therefore, the purpose of my intervention today is to assist the right hon. Gentleman, to ensure that he does not get into that difficulty in the future, and to ensure also that on a subsequent occasion he will do what he did not do originally, namely, make absolutely certain that the book trade in particular will not be injured by this Measure.
On his own showing when he introduced the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman had not safeguarded the position. Had he done so there would not have been any necessity for him to make this concession. Therefore, we have to watch the point particularly carefully. I do not know from which pigeonhole the Board of Trade produced this Bill, but it took it out of a pigeonhole and introduced it to the House of Commons. It tried to push through the House a Measure which, on its own confession, was not sufficient to protect the book trade from the injury which many of us feared it would suffer. Now the right hon. Gentleman has made a concession, but we want to be absolutely sure that the concession is sufficient. Therefore, I give every warning—though it may be entirely superfluous—that on the Report stage we shall examine the matter extremely carefully.
I will go even further and say this. The book trade went to the Court before and proved its case. Now under this Bill it has to go through all the turmoil and bother of presenting its case again. If, after this Measure is put on the Statute Book, the pledges of the right hon. Gentleman turn out not to develop as they have been intended to do—if, in other words, the publishing trade, after suffering the enormous disadvantage of having to go to the Court again, discovers that, in spite of these assurances, it is not able to maintain a system which it regards as being absolutely essential for maintaining the publishing trade on a proper basis—in other words, if all these pledges are misleading—I can only assure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be hell to pay. I hope, therefore, that he will introduce


his new Clause with that point fully in mind.
There are other trades which are affected. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that there was at least one other trade which was affected in very similar terms to those of the book trade. I would be grateful if he would tell us whether he thinks that the pledge that he gave last night covers that other trade. In addition, if he will tell us what trade it is, it will be helpful and will enable us to judge for ourselves. Perhaps we could have conversations with the trade concerned between now and Report.
I should also like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us first, whether his pledge means that he will do everything he can to ensure that it is wide enough for the book trade to be able to present its case in the terms that some of his hon. Friends desire, through the Restrictive Practices Court; and, secondly, whether it will be wide enough to give it the advantage of being able to put its full case to the other trade which is involved. He has not told us which is the trade concerned; I may have missed something, but I hope not.
In addition, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look afresh at a matter which he dismissed very lightly in his reply yesterday. I do not blame him for doing so. He had a lot of trouble on his hands, and he was dealing with it skilfully. He did not want to get diverted on to another subject. He dismissed what was said would happen to the newspaper industry by saying that resale price maintenance did not apply and he suggested that there was nothing further to be said on that aspect of the matter.
8.15 p.m.
I was aware that resale price maintenance did not apply to the sale of newspapers in a literal sense, but in our discussion on Clause 4 the right hon. Gentleman indicated that, in his view, one of the things that might be encouraged under the Bill was the establishment of new entrants into the newspaper distribution trade.

Mr. Heath: indicated dissent.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I am sure that if he looks at the report of his own speech on

the subject he will see that that is what he said. At any rate, that is my interpretation of his words. He said that it would be very wrong is supplies were withheld on this basis. It would be improper for me to discuss that aspect of the matter on the Question "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill", but it was precisely because of the right hon. Gentleman's references on that matter that I took the opportunity of referring to what would be the effects on the newspaper trade.
The hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Sir P. Bishop), to whom the Secretary of State paid a special compliment only a few minutes ago, has a special knowledge of that industry, and what he said is true. He said that resale price maintenance does not apply directly to the newspaper trade, but something very like it applies. This Bill could affect newsagents in the sense, I would have thought, that the withholding of supplies in certain circumstances could be an offence under this Bill. Therefore, if the newspaper industry or the newsagents sought to protect themselves under this Clause by taking the matter to the Restrictive Practices Court to establish the right to resale price maintenance, even if they did not have it before—that could be a way in which they could seek to protect themselves—we would have to see how these criteria also affected the newsagents. This is an extremely important matter.
The hon. Member for Harrow, Central, who is not in his place at the moment—I do not blame him for that—described how he got his newspapers delivered in some remote village at 8 o'clock every morning, and said that this was a wonderful thing to happen. Of course it is a remarkable thing to happen. It happens all over the country. But it happens in this country and in precious few other countries. I acknowledge that it happens in a few others, but on nothing like the same scale as in this country. One of the reasons for that is the ordered system of distribution. I am not saying that we should have a system under which no new newsagents should be allowed into the business. Of course we must allow for that possibility. But if we were to disrupt the newsagents' business by preventing them from having the security of resale price maintenance, as we might


do, even though they do not have that system formally in operation now, they might seek to protect themselves by going to the Court under this Clause.
I hope that as well as giving the assurances about the pledges that he has given, the right hon. Gentleman will also give us the assurance that, in his view, the newsagents and the newspaper industry or manufacturers, if they wish, should also be able to go to the Court and that the possibility of their arguing their case would be covered by all these criteria.
It is not a trivial matter. When I discussed it before, I indicated my interest in the newspaper business, but, of course, it is a matter of importance not only for those who work in the trade. The distribution of the printed word, whether by books or by newspapers, is of paramount importance for the maintenance of free debate and discussion in this country. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman must be particularly careful that he does nothing to injure these forms of trade, especially when he is introducing a Bill which, naturally, is bound to deal with a whole host of other trades or commodities. He ought to pay special attention to ensure that, in introducing a Measure which can perfectly well be defended if one is dealing with ordinary commodities like soap, detergents, cement and the rest, he does not at the same time injure the dissemination of free opinion in this country.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will treat all these requests for assurances with the respect which they deserve. I do not think that he did so when he introduced his Bill, but he has been doing his best to make amends since, although whenever I have pressed him on some matter he has said, "No, I am not making any substantial changes". I notice, nevertheless, that when he meets his hon. Friends he has to say that the changes which he is making are extremely substantial. I shall not probe into those tender matters any more, but I want the right hon. Gentleman to give in as clear as possible terms the assurances for which I have asked, and I make perfectly clear to him and to the draftsmen who may assist him between now and Report that we shall in due time be looking pre-

cisely to see whether all these legitimate interests are properly protected.

Mr. Bence: I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) into the realms of the book and newspaper trades. I wish to direct attention to the matter of service.
Having given a great deal of study to Clause 5, I have come to the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, that the Minister has made considerable concessions to his right hon. and hon. Friends, and I think that those concessions which have been made one way or another are in part, or mainly, perhaps, due to the vigour of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale, in taking over the practical work of leadership which was at first in evidence on the Notice Paper, but which, apparently, was silenced at a secret meeting somewhere else. Certainly, in all the meetings of the Committee which I have attended, the vigorous support for improvement of the Bill has come from this side.
I wish to take up a statement which the right hon. Gentleman made yesterday and which has been repeated many times in the Committee. Although there may be one or two isolated cases in which it is correct, in industry and trade generally—certainly in the industry with which I am loosely connected—it is definitely not true.
Referring to services yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I suggest that this is the point where the consumer ought to have the right of choice and should not have to pay for them"—
that is to say, services.
Although they may be nice, he may not want them and he should not have to pay for them through r.p.m. If r.p.m. is removed he has the opportunity of buying his goods without the services, presumably at a cheaper rate, or of buying the goods at a shop which gives the services but charges for them. This is the element of choice to the consumer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1964; Vol. 693, c. 1399.]
How, in the name of fortune, this idea ever arose I do not know. I have been through a long list of consumer durables. Suppliers of the motor car, probably the Singer sewing machine, which is not subject to r.p.m., the W. & T. Avery weighing machine, the Hoover products, and Bloom and the direct


selling groups are the only groups which with the sale of their machines offer, for a monetary payment, a periodical service for the machines. With the motor car a service is offered for the first 300 miles, with a book of vouchers covering first change of oil, and so on. That is the only element of service provided in the sale of a motor car.

Mr. Burden: With respect, it varies according to the maker of the car. On some cars, if there is a fault within a year, or 12,000 miles, the part is replaced free of charge. We appreciate his point of view, but the hon. Gentleman must not exaggerate.

Mr. Bence: I am coming to that.
The actual service sold as a service with the motor car is the first service at 300 miles or 1,000—whatever it may be—with a book of vouchers. With it goes a warranty. With the sale of tape-recorders, radio sets, sewing machines and all sorts of manufactured products there is a warranty, and within the period of warranty a free service is provided if a fault is found in the machine; but this is not a service bought with the machine. It is a warranty given with the machine, and this is where the hon. Gentleman is making his mistake.
One cannot call a warranty given to cover the first 12 months or so a service sold with the machine. If it were, should we then have to set about amending our legislation on merchantability and alter the law with respect to warranty? If the price were cut by 5 per cent., should we say that the service provided under a warranty is a service which can therefore be wiped out?
The right hon. Gentleman, referring to the gateways in Clause 5, has said that the consumer has a choice of accepting goods—the hon. Gentleman looks upon a warranty as a service and this is his error—with or without a service, but to speak of that in terms of warranty is absolute nonsense.
Someone buying a consumer durable is interested in getting a good machine, whatever it may be, and when buying it he inquires what are the conditions under which he can get it serviced. I know of no product with which for its life, for three, four, or five years, a free service is sold. I have been in the light

engineering industry for many years, and on this side of it, too—

Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. Gentleman is not on the right point here. It is not only a question of free service. The danger would come if no one patronised anything except big establishments which sold the article without any service at all. Then there would be no service, whether free or not.

Mr. Bence: The point I am making is that, when the product is sold, no service is sold with it beyond a period stated according to the purchase price. The service which goes with a motor car, as I have said, covers the first 1,000 miles or so, and one buys also a warranty. There is no question of the warranty being wiped out. The question is, can a person buy it without the service?
All the service on a motor car afterwards is the service which the user of it himself decides to have according to the use which he makes of the car. One has a car serviced every 1,000 miles or every 5,000 miles, but one pays for it. One does not pay for it when one buys the car. One pays for it when one gets the car serviced. I never get my car serviced, because I do it myself. However, I do not get underneath the car and get myself dirty in servicing when it is new. No doubt when the right hon. Gentleman has his car serviced he pays for it. This idea about there being a choice between taking a service or not taking a service when buying a product is nonsense. The service that one gets in the initial period when the article is new comes under a warranty.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: Which does not mean anything.

Mr. Bence: I agree that in many cases it does not mean anything.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Member is proving the point to the hilt. One argument put forward for keeping resale price maintenance in the motor trade is the service provided. The hon. Member is saying that he pays for these services when he gets them. Surely he is supporting the argument that resale price maintenance should not be maintained. If that were the case, he would be able to go on doing his own servicing, and that is the element of consumer choice.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Bence: I am dealing with a product, the motor car, in respect of which resale price maintenance does not exist. When a person goes to a dealer to buy a new car and wishes to pay for it partly in cash and partly by trading in his old car the dealer is not obliged by the manufacturer to set a second-hand price on the car that he is taking in. He can take any price that he likes. Resale price maintenance has not existed in that sense in the motor trade for years.
I saw an advertisement the other day by a company which said, "Whatever your second-hand machine is like, it is worth £5 if you buy a new one before 28th April".

Mr. Burden: We should not get confused between a warranty and service. Motor cars are produced on a production line. The manufacturers expect that, because of mass production, there will be faults. Rather than test minutely every vehicle at a cost of perhaps £100, they accept that there might be faults and give a warranty, which is incorporated with the service, to put them right over a year.

Mr. Bence: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of new techniques and quality control in a modern engineering plant, modern mechanical devices made by machines are far more accurate and better in performance than those which were manufactured by hand 50 or or 60 years ago. One could not hammer a car in 1912 like one hammers them today; they would have fallen to pieces. Cars did only 20 miles an hour in the 1920s.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. F. Blackburn): The hon. Member must get the debate nearer to the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill". I am not sure what the hon. Member is arguing about. If he says that motor cars are not subject to resale price maintenance, I am not sure to which gateway he is referring.

Mr. Bence: I am referring to services which are supposed to be the alternative for which the consumer is asked to pay. When a consumer goes to buy a product the alternative is not whether he should buy it with or without the service. The proposition which he has to consider is, having bought it, can he get it serviced

and at how many points can he get it serviced. He must consider which components in the product may go wrong and the points at which he can obtain components to go into the car.
Clause 5 states, through one of the gateways, that the variety of articles concerned should be taken into consideration when one is considering service. I am arguing that service is not an alternative. It is an essential point, if the article concerned is a consumer durable, which the consumer must take into consideration.
It is well known that there are products which are sold by direct trade and discount houses which people cannot get serviced when they go wrong. I have had a certain consumer durable since 1947. I have an agreement with the manufacturer under which I pay a quarterly charge of about 11s. and have it serviced regularly every quarter. As a result, the article is as good as new. I did not buy the service when I bought the article. I am paying for the service now. I resent the statement by the Secretary of State and others that service is an alternative. People do not buy service when they buy a product. They get a warranty with the product, but that is not a service. It is quite dishonest and misleading to the general public.
One of the consequences of this attitude is that people who buy products will not be able to get them serviced. All over the country, there is a decline in the number of points of service for the motor car. There are plenty of petrol pumps everywhere, but no mechanics at them to service a car which breaks down. In many cases, as can be checked with the A.A. or R.A.C., motorists have to be towed ever-increasing distances to get to a service station to have their car serviced.
I have mentioned before—

Mr. Burden: Yes, three times.

Mr. Bence: —that motorists carry spares in the boot of their car because of the danger of not getting service. If, throughout the range of consumer durables, we do anything that tends to reduce or destroy the points at which people can get the article which they have bought serviced and component


parts renewed, we will be doing something detrimental to the users of those products.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. We cannot turn this into a general debate on the question of service. The hon. Member must show how the Clause fails to meet his case.

Mr. Bence: I did not want to go into the details of the Clause, Mr. Blackburn, but as you have asked me I will explain why I have come to my conclusion and how it is relevant—

The Temporary Chairman: I said that this must not be turned into a general debate on service. We are debating the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Bence: I was under the impression that we were discussing the power of the Court to exempt classes of goods.
The Clause states:
An order under this section directing that goods of any class shall be exempted goods may be made by the Restrictive Practices Court if it appears to the Court that in default of a system of maintained minimum resale prices applicable to those goods—
(a) the quality of the goods available for sale, or the varieties of the goods so available…
I have mentioned varieties of components at service stations. I am explaining why I was talking about services, because I see it in the Clause. It must be made clear by the Minister that "varieties" brings within consideration of the Restrictive Practices Court all the nearly 2,000 components that go into a motor car.

The Temporary Chairman: Order If the Clause does not do these things which the hon. Member wants, he cannot argue about them now. He can argue only about what is in the Clause.

Mr. Bence: This, Mr. Blackburn, is what the Clause does.

Mr. Burden: It does what?

Mr. Bence: The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday that the capacity to have these points of service and all these varieties of service, to give service for consumer durables, was an alternative. I say that it is not. It is an essential part of the use of the product. It is not an essential part of the product when

somebody is buying it, but it is an essential quality attaching to the product after it is bought. When the right hon. Gentleman suggests that these services are an alternative, he poses a false proposition.
I did not want to go through each of these provisions, Mr. Blackburn, but as you have suggested that I should show how what I was saying was relevant—

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member is not thinking that that I have given him any encouragement to continue.

Mr. Bence: I thought that you had, Mr. Blackburn, when you asked me to explain how what I was saying was relevant. If someone asks me to supply—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I said that the hon. Member must make this speech on the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill" and not on other extraneous issues.

Mr. Bence: That is what I was doing, Mr. Blackburn. I was talking about services as a quality or a useful quality attaching to a certain consumer durable and I mentioned motor cars.
Paragraph (c) of subsection (2) states:
any necessary services actually provided in connection with…
But the services are not provided "in connection with". They are provided after the product has been bought. One does not buy the service with the product. One buys the product in the hope that one can get service after one has bought it. [Interruption.] This is a serious matter. I come from Scotland.

Mr. John Hall: On a point or order, Mr. Blackburn. I understand that there is a rule about tedious repetition which applies to debates in general. Does it apply to the Committee stage of Bills?

The Temporary Chairman: It applies to every debate. It is left to the Chair to decide when the stage of tedious repetition has been reached. We are getting near it.

Mr. Bence: To continue with that point. Paragraph (c) of subsection (2) says:
…any necessary services actually provided in connection with or after the sale of the goods…


The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said that this is an alternative to buying the goods below what were r.p.m. prices. But this is essentially to conclude that the service is attached to the article and that there are places where one can get that service. A false impression is being given.
I hope that the Secretary of State will correct the statement made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, who said that by the Bill the consumer will be offered this alternative. It is an alternative which does not make sense. It is not an alternative to buy a product and then be able to get it serviced. If there is an alternative it is if a consumer, having bought a product from A, can get it serviced with B, C, D, E and F, so that he will not have to come back to the source from which he bought it to get it serviced. If the latter case is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant, I agree with him.
If Clause 5 is restricted to the concept that the service attaching to a product can be rendered only by the vendor of the product, the agency or dealer or retailer who sells the product, I am all in favour of it. But that is not the impression given by the right hon. and learned Member. Nor is it what the Clause does.
We keep being told that the product at the point of distribution is sold at a price which provides a service point. That is not so.

Mr. Burden: This is the tenth time that we have heard it.

Mr. Bence: I am not a lawyer and I have to put this in layman's language. But this is very important when considering the price structure of consumer durables. It is very important that people who buy washing machines—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. We are not discussing the price structure of durables, but the power of the Restrictive Practices Court to exempt certain classes of goods.

Mr. Bence: Yes—from the abolition of r.p.m. I should have thought that a Clause which provided gateways where

a manufacturer could submit his product to be resale price maintained would cover the fixing of prices.

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not put down a series of Amendments on these particular points.

Mr. Bence: If the other side had been united in their views I probably would have done. There were so many Amendments by hon. Members opposite with which I agreed that there was no need for me to put them down.

The Temporary Chairman: As the hon. Gentleman has not put them down he is not entitled to discuss them now, but only what is in Clause 5.

Mr. Bence: I never mentioned putting Amendments down. It was put to me and I replied. However, I will bring my remarks to a close. [HON. MEMBERS:"Hear hear."] I have made my point. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will assure us that he did not intend to give the impression that by the abolition of r.p.m. when consumer durable goods are submitted for sale, where prices are reduced or discounts given it will be on the assumption that the sale of those products was under conditions in which either a warranty or a reasonable guarantee was given that the goods could be serviced in a remote village or town. I hope that he will give us an assurance that that is not the impression that he intended to give.

8.45 p.m

Mr. Heath: I shall try to reply to the points that have been made.

The Temporary Chairman: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reply only to the points that were in order.

Mr. Heath: I shall do my best to comply with your request, Mr. Blackburn.
I take the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). I have studied the remarks he made in the discussion. When I began to reply I said that I would consider everything put forward in the debate, and this I will do before Report. My approach to the point he raised concerning the variety of other goods which might be sold and the quality of


other goods which might be sold is the same as my approach to the question of the price of other goods which might be sold. As he said, it is a question of "any goods"—interconnected goods.
If we took account of variety and quality we should do the same thing in respect of price. Resale price maintenance may be imposed on one set of goods so that other sets of goods may be subsidised in respect of variety and not price. I will consider the point that my right hon. and learned Friend raised yesterday and again this evening.
I now turn to the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). I stated my position quite clearly last night, in the discussion of the Amendment, and I adhere to it. The hon. Member has no cause to speak of my misleading the Committee in any way. I gave some undertakings; I carried out one last night, and I have said that I will consider these matters between now and Report.
As for the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), the gateway will give the Restrictive Practices Court the opportunity of considering whether r.p.m. is necessary or reasonably necessary for the consumer. In these cases, if the Court decides that there is no justification for the maintenance of r.p.m., the consumer will have a choice, either of receiving a service—and that was the argument put forward by those who want to maintain r.p.m.—or of buying the goods without a service.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(APPLICATIONS FOR EXEMPTION FOR GOODS.)

Amendment made: In page 5, line 35, at beginning insert:
(1) It shall be the duty of the Registrar to prepare, compile and maintain for the purposes of this Act a register of goods in respect of which notices are given to him under this section, and to make reference to the court under section 5 of this Act (subject to such directions as may be given by the Board of Trade with respect to the order in which such references are to be made) in respect of all goods of which particulars are for the time being entered in the register.—[Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan.]

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move Amendment No. 117, in page 5, line 35, to leave out from after the words last inserted to the second "the" and to insert "After".

The Temporary Chairman: With this Amendment we can take Amendments Nos. 125, 126, 127, 131, and 152.

Mr. Irvine: Yes, Mr. Blackburn. At this point the Committee turns its thoughts to the procedure governing applications in respect of exemptions for certain goods. Those applications have to be heard by the Restrictive Practices Court under the machinery set out in the Bill. As I read the Clause, such applications must be made within the period of three months from the commencement of the coming into operation of Clause 5. The Amendment would have the effect of allowing applications to be brought to the Court without a time limit.
The point is a short one. I do not see what procedural advantage is gained by the requirement that applications for exemption for goods must be made within a period of three months from the passing of the Act. That is a comparatively short period. There will, presumably, be a considerable number of persons desiring to make application and with so short a period I think that there is the risk of possible congestion in the "pipeline" of applications. That would be of no advantage to anyone.
It may well be that the Minister will enlighten me about this, and indicate the advantage in terms of procedure or administration of putting this period requirement into the Bill. From the point of view of policy I should have thought it desirable that suppliers should have reasonable time to consider how the Bill affects the class of goods in which they are interested. I think that there is everything to be said in favour of giving suppliers room for manœuvre and at least a substantial margin of time during which they could put in an application. Requirements which seem desirable from the point of view of suppliers would meet the convenience of the Registrar and the Court and make it easier rather than otherwise to programme the processes of applications and the hearing of applications.

Mr. William Shepherd: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman inviting the Committee to say that applications should be allowed to be entered at any time after the passing of the Act? Is he really saying that?

Mr. Irvine: That is a perfectly fair question. It may be my fault, but at the moment—I shall be interested to hear the answer—I do not see any objection to it being open to a supplier to apply at any time. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) will reveal some dazzling and convincing objection to it, and if so I should be the first to acknowledge the merit of his answer were I satisfied that his answer possessed merit.
I do not see any objection in principle. I feel much more strongly about the three-month limit. I think that period is too short. It seems to me that the appropriate way to deal with this is to leave it at large and make it possible for suppliers to bring forward their applications at a time of their choice and when they have had an opportunity to consider the effect of the new provisions upon the goods which they are supplying.
Unless I am mistaken, that would have the collateral advantage that it would cover new classes of goods after the date of the passing of the Bill and it becoming an Act. It seems to us that nothing would be gained by cluttering up the situation in a manner which might result from the imposition of a three-month restriction and that the Bill would be better if there were no time limit. Suppliers would not wish to delay too long in the ordinary conduct of affairs. The Bill would be a better Measure if this rigid and strict time-table were not applied. We shall be interested to learn of the arguments to be brought forward to support the time-table which is proposed.

Mr. Shepherd: I do not think I can give the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) an answer which is dazzling, but I might be able to put a point which I think unanswerable.
Surely the purpose of the Bill when it becomes an Act is to decide whether resale price maintenance shall or shall not be permitted. If we allow individuals to register at any time after the passing

of the Bill, quite clearly in the interval of time one presumes they will be able to continue the practice which is the subject of the Bill. If that is so it would result in infinite postponement of any critical decisions on the practice of resale price maintenance. This seems utterly wrong and I cannot understand why the hon. and learned Member put down an Amendment of this kind.

Mr. du Cann: We have had two interesting speeches, from the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. W. Shepherd), although they seemed to be somewhat at variance. I hope, however, that by the time I sit down I shall have been able to please everyone. If I have not, it will not be for the want of trying. I do not promise to dazzle hon. Members.
We are considering six Amendments, the main Amendment No. 117, in the name of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), Amendment No. 125 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) and Amendment No. 152 also in his name—about which I wish to say something in particular in a moment—Amendments Nos. 126 and 127 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), and Amendment No. 131, originally in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. A. Brown). They are all designed to achieve substantially the same purpose. That is to allow notice to be given by suppliers seeking exemption at any time and not only within the three-month period referred to in Clause 6.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle to the extent that we think it right that the three-month limit should remain. This Bill has a particular purpose which is entirely clear. Fears expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill as to pressure and so on we think are unlikely, but on the question of late application we think there is force in the arguments for these Amendments. We also think that many suppliers might be prepared to abandon the practice of r.p.m. if they felt that they would not thereby forgo the chance of applying for exemption at a later stage. In those circumstances, therefore, while agreeing


with my hon. Friend, I agree with some of the arguments of the hon. and learned Member and I am happy to give the Committee an undertaking to reconsider the matter with a view to putting down an Amendment at a later stage.
There are two other matters that I wish to state to the Committee, one of which I have already prophesied. The first will be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle. There would be no question in the case of these late applications of an interim exemption. I shall explain precisely what I mean. As the Committee will know, if an application for exemption is made within the ordinary period of three months r.p.m. can continue in respect of that trade in the meantime. We should not be prepared in the Amendment we have in mind for Report to allow r.p.m. to continue during the period of application. That will not be possible. It will be only possible to introduce, or may be even to reintroduce, r.p.m. following a late application if it is successful before the Court, from that moment on, and not a day before it.
I hope that that deals with one point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Shepherd: If, three years after the passing of the Act, someone decides to put in an application, is it clear that in the interval between the passing of the Act and the application he will not be allowed to engage in the restrictive practice concerned?

Mr. du Cann: The answer is a clear and unequivocal, "Yes"

Mr. W. Wells: That is not clear.

Mr. du Cann: I appear not to be as clear as I should like, and as I know the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) would particularly like me to be clear, I will restate the position. The answer is that it will not be possible for r.p.m. to be practised in the interim period of three years to which he referred. I hope that that is clear.

Mr. Wells: I understand it.

Mr. du Cann: If the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North says that he understands it, then we must all be quite

clear. He has a very clear mind, as I am well aware.
The second point with which I wanted to deal arises on Amendment No. 152 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham. This Amendment deals with a particular class of case, unlike the other Amendments which the Committee is considering. As I said, I am prepared to reconsider the whole question of late applications, but this would, of course, cover applications in respect of new goods as well as late applications, a point mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill. In the circumstances, I hope that the Committee will permit the Amendment to be withdrawn in order to allow further Amendments to be put down to deal with the position.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: In the case of an application made within three months which does not come before the Court for a considerable time, I take it that the interim arrangements continue and that the r.p.m. continues?

Mr. du Cann: This is made clear in the Bill.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: It is encouraging, when one has put forward an argument which has apparently struck the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) as wholly unsustainable, to discover later that it is acceptable, by and large, in principle to the Government. I am glad of the assurance which we have received, which seemed to me to be helpful and important. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. du Cann: I beg to move Amendment 205, in page 5, line 36, to leave out "section 5 of this Act" and to insert "this section".
I think that I need not weary the Committee with a detailed explanation. This is purely a drafting Amendment, minor in character, which has no effect on the substantive provisions of the Clause.

Amendment, agreed to.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Blackburn): I understand that the following Amendrent is not to be moved—No. 120, in page 5, line 38, after "resale" to insert "any dealer in those goods".
The Chairman of Ways and Means has said that in that case the debate can take place on Amendment No. 121 in the name of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).

Mr. Jay: I beg to move Amendment No. 121, in page 5, line 39, after "include" to insert "dealers or".
I take it that we may discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 122 and 160.

The Temporary Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Jay: This group takes us back to the point argued on Second Reading. The question is whether retailers as well as manufacturers may be permitted under the Bill to give notice that they wish to bring the possibility of exemption before the Restrictive Practices Court. At present under the Bill only the supplier may give notice. I argued in my contribution on Second Reading that it was unreasonable to exclude the retailer altogether from initiating this process under the Bill. The Minister replied that there would be no point in giving the retailer, in addition to the supplier, the opportunity to take the initiative, because it is, after all, the supplier—the manufacturer—who maintains resale prices; therefore, unless—I again state the Minister's argument—the manufacturer who maintains them wishes to give notice, there could be no sense in the retailer giving notice, and, if the supplier wishes to do so, he presumably will.
This does not wholly satisfy us. There might be a variety of circumstances here. No doubt in the normal circumstance it would be the manufacturer, or I suppose the wholesaler, who is included in "supplier" for this purpose—the Minister might clear that point up—who would be responsible for maintaining resale prices, and therefore he would wish to initiate the claim for exemption. It is, however, one of the oddities of this subject that, whereas the maintenance of resale prices limits the freedom of the retailer—this is one of the cases against it, because it limits the freedom of the retailer to vary his prices—nothing stands out more obviously from the whole controversy than that in practice a large number a retailers are extremely anxious that resale prices should be maintained.
Therefore, a retailer is clearly an interested party. On the face of it, it is a little odd to shut retailers out—I do not use the word "gateway"; this would lead to confusion—from entry at this stage of the Bill where the whole legal proceedings are initiated.
I should have thought that there would be some circumstances in which it might be appropriate, or it might be wished, that retailers, in spite of what the Minister has said, should give the original notice. We know that the retailers may desire that resale prices should be maintained. Might not there be circumstances in which by agreement, for instance, with the manufacturers they would wish to give the notice? Might it not be that they were more willing to undertake the financial costs involved in fighting the case than the manufacturer?
Various possible circumstances might arise. At the very least, even if it is the case that it is very unlikely that the retailers—or the retailers' trade association, which is included in these Amendments—would wish to argue the case when the manufacturers did not, there would be no harm in putting this into the Bill. It would perhaps be null and void, but it would at least recognise the retailers' right to have a say and, if the situation never arose, I do not see why the Minister would think that any harm would be done.
Since the Bill is so heavily weighted against retailers in many respects—we have now passed Clause 5, in which the retailers' interest cannot be taken into account at all in the argument there—I should have thought that there was a case for at least giving this section of the trading community the right to initiate the proceedings. Even admitting the whole of the Minister's argument, which I do not do, and that this would not be likely to arise in any circumstances, no harm would be done by making this Amendment. We should at least have removed the grievance which retailers might now have.

Mr. du Cann: I regret that after having, if I do not assume too much, obtained a good mark from the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) for being agreeable in regard to the last batch of Amendments, I shall


now acquire a substantial black mark for being a little disagreeable, because I am sorry to have to tell him that I cannot accept the arguments he has put before the Committee in moving the Amendment.
The Amendment is designed to permit the initiation of exemptions by trade associations of retailers. As the right hon. Member said, Clause 6 as drafted provides for an application only by suppliers, as defined in Clause 11, and excluding retailers. Referring to Clause 5, he said that it was designed to exclude all interests of retailers. That is not quite so, although I do not take full issue with him on this point because Clause 5(2,b) relates to the number of establishments and, therefore, to a limited extent obviously retailing interests are considered. Be that as it may, there is very good reason for Clause 6 to be drafted as it is, and the right hon. Gentleman called attention to the remarks of my right hon. Friend in an earlier discussion which we had on this point.
Resale price maintenance is a practice of manufacturers. They impose price conditions which each retailer must individually observe. A manufacturer is entirely free to practice r.p.m. or not, and if he wishes to abandon the practice his distributors cannot compel him to continue it. Indeed, if they tried to do so collectively—for example, by withholding orders—they would be in breach of Section 24 of the 1956 Act.
Assuming that the Bill becomes an Act, where a manufacturer or other supplier wishes to continue to maintain prices he will, no doubt, apply for exemption. The only purpose in permitting retailers to apply on his behalf, as it were, would be to enable individual retailers to bring pressure to bear on the manufacturer to maintain his prices when obviously he did not want to do so.
The Bill is intended to restrict r.p.m. and we feel strongly that we do not want to write into it a provision which would only encourage individual retailers to try to persuade unwilling or indifferent manufacturers to maintain their resale prices. I could not agree with the right hon. Member for Batter-

sea, North that if the Government saw fit to accept the Amendment it would do no harm. In our view it would do a great deal of harm and would strike at the whole root and purpose of the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the question of costs. I suppose that if the suppliers and retailers think it appropriate in particular cases there is nothing to stop them coming to personal agreements about the sharing of costs. That is a matter for them. That would not be inhibited by the Bill as drafted. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the retailer had the right to have say. As he knows, there is provision for retailers to have the right to be joined as partners in the proceedings and so be able to support a case made by a retailer under Clause 8(3), to which we shall come later.
I think, therefore, that to some extent the point of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North is met, but, in so far as it is not, I could not advise the Committee, even with the best will in the world, to accept his arguments or the Amendment. I hope that he will see fit to withdraw it or, if not, that the Committee will vote against it.

Mr. Bowen: In many instances the supplier is also the retailer. Presumably if he were engaged in the retail trade there would be nothing to prevent him, if he was in other respects operating as a supplier, from coming within this provision. I would like an assurance on this point.

Mr. du Cann: I am not sure that I comprehend the question which the hon. and learned Member is asking. There would seem to be no reason why a retailer and supplier should not be one and the same person. This is perfectly possible and one can imagine it happening. If I find upon examination that I have misunderstood the hon. and learned Member, I will write to him on the subject.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. W. Wells: As the Minister knows, it is difficult for me to understand questions of this kind and I must confess that there was one part of his argument which I did not follow at all. As I understood him, he was saying that


under the Amendment my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was, in effect, seeking to undermine the purpose of the Bill, which, he said, was designed to restrict r.p.m. He went on to say that this series of Amendments would hamper that restriction.
Surely the hon. Gentleman does not really mean that. It does not restrict resale price maintenance for someone who thinks that he is a party to the arrangements to challenge the arrangements. It is ordinary practice. These Amendments would give the dealers a right of audience and a right of initiation. Resale price maintenance may be right in particular circumstances or it may be wrong, but since there are two vitally affected sets of parties, one the suppliers and the other the dealers, apart from the public, why should it be said that the suppliers are to have the right to initiate proceedings and not the dealers, if the dealers can see that their interests are vitally at stake?

Mr. Shepherd: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) that there seems to be some lack of equity in limiting the rights of initiation to suppliers especially as r.p.m. was in many cases a conspiracy, if I may use this term, between suppliers and retailers. I think that the Committee may have lost sight of the proposal of my hon. Friend a short time ago that late application would be permitted. This has a very real bearing on the suggestion now before the Committee.
The Committee can imagine what might happen. Applications could take place at any time, presumably, years after the passing of the Bill. If it were allowed that retailers could bring an application, manufacturers would be at hazard because one of 10,000 retailers wanted to bang in an application in respect of that manufacturer's products. I would regard that as a wholly intolerable situation. I think that it is an inescapable conclusion when we imagine what would happen if the proposal now before the Committee were accepted.

Mr. Jay: I am not sure that that wholly clears the matter up. I see the hon. Gentleman's point. He says that if retailers were given this power they

could put in an application and for a period, whatever it was, suspend the total abolition of r.p.m.

Mr. Shepherd: It would not suspend it, because, as my hon. Friend has said, during this period of time there would be no question of maintaining r.p.m. What it would do would be to expose the manufacturer, at any time after the passing of the Bill, to the danger of some crackpot retailer wanting to initiate an application in respect of his goods.

Mr. Jay: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should assume that retailers are crackpots any more than manufacturers. The point that I make is that no such action could compel a manufacturer against his will to impose r.p.m. We use the phrase "imposing r.p.m.", but by this, of course, we mean the manufacturer availing himself of the power under Section 25 of the 1956 Act to enforce his prices in Court. This is something which he does not have to do. It is merely something which he does if he wishes. All that this Amendment would do would be to enable any manufacturer, who wished to do so, to take advantage of those legal powers. We do not put the manufacturer in this position against his will, so there is not much in that point.
I agree that it is arguable whether a great deal would be achieved by giving retailers the power to advance these claims. It might be argued that in almost every case where they would wish to do so the manufacturers or wholesalers would wish to do so in any case, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman makes out any case when he says that harm would be done. On his own argument it follows that no harm would be done. He said that unless the manufacturer wished to maintain the resale price it could not be maintained; that if a retailer were to put in a claim without agreement with the manufacturer, nothing could follow unless the manufacturer wished to avail himself of the opportunity.
The only change would be that if the manufacturer wished to avail himself of these powers and agreed with the retailers or retailers' trade association that they should promote the claim this alternative procedure could be followed,


but nothing would come of it in the end if the manufacturer did not wish to avail himself of it. That, however, seems to prove my case that no harm would come about. I therefore maintain that this proposal would, in principle, do justice to retailers; that, at worst, no harm would be done and that, at best, we would have a more equitable procedure.

Mr. Bowen: I can understand the distinction being drawn between the position of manufacturers and retailers but, in fact, the operative word is "supplier", which covers all those people who are in the different channels of distribution between the manufacturer and the retailer. The same goods frequently pass from the manufacturer to one wholesaler, then to another wholesaler, and then, perhaps, to someone who is both wholesaler and retailer. As the Clause is worded, each of those wholesalers could make an application, including the wholesaler who is also a retailer, but the man who is a retailer simply and solely would be debarred. If it were said that only the producer of the goods could make the application there would be some logic in it, but there seems very little logic in saying that someone who is a distributor on a wholesale basis can apply while a distributor on a retail basis cannot.
It is said that the retailers will force the hand of either the wholesalers or the manufacturers, which would be a bad practice. The difficulty of that argument is that the Minister has said that if the situation should arise in which the manufacturer or wholesaler took the attitude, "I should like to make an application, but I cannot meet the expense involved, but the retailers share my interest in this matter—we have a common design—and the retailers are in a better position to apply it could be met by the retailers financing the manufacturer's application. If the Minister sees nothing wrong with that process, I see no reason why he should not allow the retailers to make direct application.

Mr. du Cann: If a supplier is a supplier and a retailer he will obviously have to make his application in his capacity of supplier. I do not agree with the point made by the hon. and

learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), or with that made by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), because the basic fact is that the practice of resale price maintenance is a practice of the manufacturer or supplier. It is not as though retailers are, so to speak, parties to r.p.m.
The fact is that they have r.p.m. imposed upon them and they are not in a position to enforce it. It is a practice of the manufacturer. In the light of what I said earlier about the opportunities which they have under Clause 8(3), the consideratior that they obviously would be in a position to give expert evidence in the capacity of expert witnesses, I do not think that the proposal in the Clause before the Committee is in any way unfair, but quite the reverse. I think that it is logical and for that reason I invite the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Jay: That was a rather curious speech. The hon. Gentleman makes a sweeping statement that r.p.m. is a practice of manufacturers imposed upon retailers. If that is a fact, I do not know what our debates have been about and what the hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) has been putting before us. I thought that, broadly, he was speaking on behalf of the distributors rather than the manufacturers. Is it not perfectly clear that large numbers of retailers are anxious to have r.p.m. maintained, whether they are right or not?
As I have said, r.p.m. cannot be maintained without the agreement and consent of the manufacturer and wholesaler, but to say that because it is imposed upon the retailer therefore only the manufacturer has the right to give the notice seems to me to be completely illogical. The retailer may wish it to be maintained just as much as the manufacturer does. If, therefore, he has the agreement of the manufacturer, why should we exclude him from initiating proceedings?

Mrs. Castle: There is another point which we should bear in mind in this connection. Might there not be a case where a manufacturer might have a divided mind and be quite easy about which way it went, whether r.p.m. was maintained or was abolished, and was prepared to let it go rather than take


positive action whereas the retailers would be the ones who would be closest to the consumer and, therefore, better able to judge the importance of the gateway criteria in this Clause?
The provision of the necessary after-service, for example, is a function of the retailer. He is more likely to be intimately aware of what the consequences of the abolition of r.p.m. would be in the matter of the services which the consumer would receive. The same applies to the safety criterion and also to the effect on the number of retail establishments. Surely, therefore, these are judgments which are much more at the retailing than the manufacturing level.
The retailer might feel that the consumer was being misled about the advantage of abolishing r.p.m. The retailer would know the consequences at the retailing level and the manufacturer might be indifferent either way. If the retailer could take the initiative, and have the gateways considered by the Restrictive Practices Court, this might make the manufacturer think again. It is true that if the manufacturer liked to remain obdurate there is nothing that the retailer could do about it, but sometimes second thoughts and more public discussion of these things would bring certain factors to light.
If these advantages to the public in r.p.m. are experienced at retail level they ought to be considered as part of

the issue before the step is taken. In that particular case, therefore, the retailer, by having the opportunity to take the initiative, might change the manufacturer's mind.

9.30 p.m.

Surely it is rather an anomaly that we should have spent so much time in Committee discussing all these gateway items under Clause 5 if it is only the manufacturer's interest that is involved. What is the point of having the gateways? What is the point of all this concern about the effect on the servicing of the goods, safety precautions, the effect on the retail outlets, their accessibility, their number and all the rest of it, if, when it comes to the point, the decision is to be taken purely by the manufacturer and purely from the manufacturer's point of view? In view of all the agitation about resale price maintenance, they might say, "Let it go", whereas the retailer would surely be a more convincing guardian of the public interest with respect to these gateway items.

All we are asking for is a little extra flexibility. In view of the fact that the manufacturer will have the final say in the long run, surely it would be more wise and logical for the Government to accept the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 105, Noes 164.

Division No. 86.]
AYES
[9.31 p.m.


Ainsley, William
Evans, Albert
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fitch, Alan
Kenyon, Clifford


Beaney, Alan
Fletcher, Eric
King, Dr. Horace


Bence, Cyril
Foley, Maurice
Lawson, George


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Ledger, Ron


Benson, Sir George
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Blyton, William
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Ginsburg, David
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H.W. (Leics, S.W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Lubbock, Eric


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanetly)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
MacColl, James


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Harper, Joseph
McInnes, James


Carmichael, Neil
Hart, Mrs. Judith
MacPherson, Malcolm


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Hayman, F. H.
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Chapman, Donald
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)
Manuel, Archie


Collick, Percy
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Mason, Roy


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hilton, A. V.
Millan, Bruce


Crosland, Anthony
Holman, Percy
Milne, Edward


Dalyell, Tam
Holt, Arthur
Mitchison, G. R.


Darling, George
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morris, Charles (Openshaw)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hunter, A. E.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Dempsey, James
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Mutley, Frederick


Diamond, John
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Oliver, G. H.


Dodds, Norman
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
O'Malley, B. K.


Doig, Peter
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)




Pavitt, Laurence
Skeffington, Arthur
Wade, Donald


Pentland, Norman
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Wainwright, Edwin


Randall, Harry
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Warbey, William


Redhead, E. C.
Small, William
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Sorensen, R. W.
Whitlock, William


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Steele, Thomas
Willey, Frederick


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Stones, William
Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)


Rose, William
Taverne, D.



Silkin, John
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thornton, Ernest
Mr. Charles A. Howell and




Mr. Grey.




NOES


Allason, James
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Atkins, Humphrey
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Pitt, Dame Edith


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Pounder, Rafton


Barber, Rt. Hon. Anthony
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Powell, Rt Hon. J. Enoch


Barlow, Sir John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Batsford, Brian
Hay, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Pym, Franois


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. Sir Peter


Biffen, John
Hirst, Geoffrey
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Biggs-Davison, John
Hobson, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Rees, Hugh (Swansea, W.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hocking, Philip N.
Rees-Davies, w. R. (Isle of Thanet)


Bishop, Sir Patrick
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Quinton
Rippon, Rt. Hon. Geoffrey


Black, Sir Cyril
Holland, Philip
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)


Bossom, Hon. Clive
Hughes-Young, Michael
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Russell, Sir Ronald


Box, Donald
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Boyle, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Scott-Hopkins, James


Braine, Bernard
Iremonger, T. L.
Sharples, Richard


Brewis, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Shaw, M.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
James, David
Shepherd, William


Brown Alen (Tottenham)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Skeet T. H. H.


Bryan Paul
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Smith Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)


Buck Antony
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Joseph, Rt. Hon. Sir Keith
Stainton Keith


Campbell, Gordon
Kershaw, Anthony
Stevens Geoffrey


Chataway Christopher
Kirk Peter
Stodart, J. A.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Lambton, Viscount
Storey, Sir Samuel


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cole, Norman
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Tapsell, Peter


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Temple, John M.


Corfield, F. V.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Coulson, Michael
Loveys, Walter H.
Thomas, Sir Leslie (Canterbury)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Crowder, F. P.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Maitland, Sir John
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Curran, Charles
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon


Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Marshall, Sir Douglas
Turner, Colin


Drayson, G. B.
Marten, Neil
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


du Cann, Edward
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Duncan, Sir James
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eden, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Canshatton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr, S. L. C.
Walker, Peter


Elliott, R.W. (Newc'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mills, Stratton
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Fell, Anthony
Miscampbell, Norman
Wall, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Montgomery, Fergus
Ward, Dame Irene


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Whitelaw, William


Freeth, Denzil
Neave, Alroy
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Noble, Rt. Hon. Michael
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Gammans, Lady
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wise, A. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Woodhouse, C. M.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Woodnutt, Mark


Green, Alan
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)



Gurden, Harold
Percival, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:



Peyton, John
Mr. Finlay and Mr. McLaren.

Amendments made: In page 5, line 41, leave out from "suppliers" to end of line 42 and insert:
claiming registration in respect of those goods".
In line 44, leave out from "shall" to "and" in line 1 on page 6 and insert:
cause particulars of the goods, of the person giving the notice and of the arrangements

described in the notice to be entered in the register".—[Sir Vaughan-Morgan.]

Mr. du Cann: I beg to move Amendment No. 206, in page 6, line 2, to leave out from "under" to "as" in line 3 and to insert:
section 5 of this Act in respect of the goods of which particulars are so entered, or any class of goods, comprising those goods,


the foregoing provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to those goods".
This is a complicated little matter, but it might be helpful if I were simply to say that the Amendment is consequential on the Amendments introducing the registration procedure. It is both a tidying and a drafting Amendment, and I hope that the Committee will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I beg to move Amendment No. 190, in page 6, line 6, to leave out from the beginning to "proceedings" in line 7 and insert:
the classes or descriptions of goods in respect of which particulars are entered in the register kept by him under this section and such list shall indicate the classes or descriptions of goods in respect of which the Court has made an order under section 5 of this Act and in respect of which of them the Court has refused to make such order and in any legal proceedings, including".
I shall speak very briefly. My activities have been quite considerable, even though my speeches have been few. I propose to move the Amendment somewhat formally because it forms part of a large number of Amendmens—about eight in all—which have not been selected but which would have made a recast of Clause 6. This Amendment on its own does not amount to anything like the ideas that my hon. Friends and I had in mind, and in a moment I shall ask the Committee for permission to withdraw it so that if this recast is required something can be done about it on Report.
Amendment No. 166, which does not have quite the same effect as all the other Amendments to which I have referred, has, I think, been selected.

The Chairman: I am at fault; I apologise. I should have made it clear that we can discuss with Amendment No. 190 Amendments Nos. 137, 139, 141 and 166.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Hirst: Thank you, Sir William. It is Amendment No. 166 to which I should like briefly to draw attention. It deals with a very important matter. It is to enable suppliers and retailers to know what classes of goods the Registrar has referred to the Court. The Registrar is required to advertise in various gazettes which, apart from alerting them, which

is only reasonable, will give suppliers and retailers an opportunity of making such representations as they think fit for consideration. The point is well made in Amendment No. 166.
Because I am being tiresome to the Committee, I hope that these few words will be enough at the proper time to impress upon my right hon. Friend that it is a matter of fairness to allow all to be alerted as to what is going on so that anybody who is interested can directly or indirectly make his voice heard.

Mr. du Cann: I know that I shall be speaking on behalf of every member of the Committee if I say at once that I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) will be able to make his voice heard in the near future and that he will fully recover. If it is any consolation to him in his present misery, he may like to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently been talking to the Soviet Minister of Foreign Trade, Mr. Patolichev, who was similarly not too well during the course of negotiations. He has made a full and complete recovery and I do not doubt that that is a fine precedent for my hon. Friend.

Mr. Thomas Steele: Am I to understand that the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) got into this difficulty at the secret meetings upstairs

Mr. du Cann: I have no knowledge or experience of secret meetings upstairs with Mr. Patolichev or anybody else, so I therefore think it most unlikely. What my hon. Friend might have been up to with Mr. Patolichev, I cannot imagine. That, however, is another subject.
We are dealing with a number of Amendments in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore). I will endeavour to assist my hon. Friend in the ways that are open to me. Although he spent most of his time talking about Amendment No. 166, I should like to spend most of my time talking about Amendment No. 190, and particularly—

Mr. Hirst: Perhaps I may refer to the fact that Amendment No. 190 is one of a series of eight Amendments—Nos. 188, 129, 189. 190, 137, 139, 141 and 147,


only one of which was selected, but the amalgamation of these Amendments would have made a complete recast of the Clause. I cannot think that the Committee can be very interested in a reply to Amendment No. 190, which is a very small proportion of the whole number. I hope that my time will not be wasted. I am all in favour of shortening these proceedings and I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will refer to what the Committee is interested in—that is, Amendment No. 166—which refers to an important matter of ensuring that everyone concerned is informed by normal advertising of what is going on.

Mr. du Cann: I am entirely at the disposal of the Committee and of my hon. Friend. My only purpose in mentioning Amendment No. 190 was to make the short point, which I will now make, to the effect that the object of that Amendment is to do two things which are covered by subsequent Amendments which we shall be discussing later. I was about to tell my hon. Friend in greater detail than I will now pursue that we will. I hope, be able to say certain things in respect of those Amendments which will cover the purposes which he has in mind. I assure my hon. Friend that we were trying to be helpful. I have no wish to obstruct the Committee—quite the reverse.
Amendment No. 166 requires the Registrar to advertise in the London Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette and the Belfast Gazette the fact that he has made a reference to the Court under Clause 5 of an application for a review of a previous decision under Clause 7. Its purpose, as my hon. Friend said—and I assure him that I heard him clearly in spite of his difficulties—is to ensure adequate publicity before any proceedings so that the retailers can make use of their right to be heard by the Court.
I fully accept the purpose underlying the Amendment. But matters of this sort are more appropriately dealt with by rules of court so I can, therefore, assure him that the rules will be so designed as to secure that proper steps are taken by the Registrar to bring any proceedings to the attention of persons likely to be interested. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance. We accept his purpose and are determined to see that it will be implemented.

In these circumstances, perhaps he will be good enough to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Hirst: I do not mind what the method is. But, if it is thought that the Registrar should make sure that those who should know are informed, what does it mean? A circular to the manufacture concerned? What we say here is that retailers and suppliers will have at interest in the matter even if no responsibility for it and that they should be informed so that they may make representations through their trade association. If the Registrar is merely to send circulars to interested parties we shall not secure the object. But if it is to be competent on his part to ensure that advertisements are placed in publications like the Gazettes, which are picked up by trade papers in due course, then I accept the assurance. But there should be clarification of this point.

Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: I reinforce strongly what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) said, He is in surprisingly good voice, despite his illness. There is good sense in what he says.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State says that this will be defined in rules of court. I accept that this is probably the right way to do it, but we want it on record that we wish these notices given the widest possible circulation. All hon. Members have sad experiences of the face that so many proposals by the Government are not adequately advertised.
A classic example is a very important matter concerning my constituency, which is in Surrey. The Minister of Transport advertised his proposals in a Kent newspaper, which does not circulate in Surrey. I am sure that the Board of Trade would not allow anything so foolish to happen and will do better than the Minister of Transport.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State gave a list of Gazettes but I notice that the Board of Trade Journal was omitted. I would not suggest that it is the most exciting periodical, but it has a very large circulation, particularly among trade associations. These notifications would certainly be the right kind of thing to put in the Board of Trade


Journal. I hope that the Board of Trade Journal will receive its appropriate mention in the rules of court.

Mr. Graham Page: I want to support Amendment No. 166, in page 7, line 41. My hon. Friend the Minister of State gave a firm assurance that something would be included in the rules of court. This is something I should have looked up beforehand. I am not sure who makes the rules of court for the Restrictive Practices Court. In the High Court there is a Rules Committee, in respect of which I doubt whether my hon. Friend could give any undertaking.
Nor am I sure exactly what his undertaking is. Is it that there shall be rules of court which will give the sort of notice indicated in Amendment No. 166? That is what is needed. It should not merely be a notice given by the parties to someone else. Its publication should be the responsibility of the Registrar through the sort of documents, papers and Gazettes whose contents get to the notice of those concerned.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to tell us a little more about how he will ensure that the principle of Amendment No. 166 will be carried out and in what form.

Mr. du Cann: We have now had a further intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. I hope that he is not wearing out. On the other hand, I hope that I shall not put him to further strain by what I have to say. My right hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) have also spoken.
My right hon. Friend was good enough to say that he accepted that the rules were the proper means by which these matters should be dealt with. He went on to contrast his experience in Surrey, under the aegis of the Ministry of Transport, with his own opinion of the Board of Trade.
My right hon. Friend has great experience of the Board of Trade, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was as grateful as I was for the confidence that he was good enough to display in us and in that great Department. I can assure him, together

with my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and Crosby, that in this context, at any rate—whatever mistakes we may make in other fields—that confidence will certainly not be misplaced.
I said originally that I fully accepted the purpose underlying the Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have heard what has been said both in general and in particular, and all that will be taken account of in ensuring that the purposes of the Amendment are put into practical effect. "Notice" certainly includes advertisement.
The best way in which I can reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby is to say that these rules are to be made by the Lord Chancellor, and it is, therefore, reasonable to suggest that what I hope was the clear undertaking that I have given to my hon. Friends at this ment—I understand their anxiety—is given with his authority. In other words, we shall see that the points made are fully satisfied.

Mr. Hirst: We must get this much clearer. My hon. Friend is trying to be helpful, but I do not know what the dickens he means. We have asked for a clear statement. Will this be advertised to the public, or will it not? It is not good enough to talk of rules, which I know nothing about. That sort of thing bores me stiff. I want to know, on behalf of the public, whether they, as well as suppliers and retailers, will have the chance to know what is going on. I do not want any legal cloak-and-dagger stuff. Is my hon. Friend prepared to give me the assurance that I require?

Mr. du Cann: There is no question of any legal cloak-and-dagger stuff. Why my hon. Friend should assume that there is from what I have said I cannot think. I thought that I said plainly that "notice" includes advertisement. As for the question asked by my hon. Friend, I am prepared to give a clear answer to it. The answer is "Yes".

Mr. Hirst: I am sure that my hon. Friend gave the right answer, but people were talking around me at the time. Will he repeat what he has just said?

Mr. du Cann: When I rose for the last time I almost asked if my hon. Member's hearing was affected as well as his voice.


I appreciate that at that moment he was in special difficulties. The answer is, without any doubt or difficulty, "Yes".

Mr. Hirst: With the assurance that the advertising will be public advertising, and with that assurance alone, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 6, line 6, leave out from "which" to "him" in line 7 and insert:
particulars are entered in the register kept by".—[Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan.]

Mr. du Cann: I beg to move, Amendment No. 182, in page 6, line 7, after "any" to insert "legal proceedings including".
The effect of this Amendment can be stated shortly, that the Registrar's list will be available as evidence in any legal proceedings and not merely for proceedings under the Bill. I hope that that may be thought a helpful and proper Amendment to propose to the Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Resale Prices Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

RESALE PRICES BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Amendments made: In page 6, line 11, leave out from "which" to "and" in line 12 and insert "particulars are so entered".

In page 6, line 15, leave out from "which" to end of line 16 and insert:
particulars are so entered.
(4) The Registrar shall also from time to time publish lists of the classes of goods in respect of which the court has made, refused to make or discharged orders under this Act, and any such list may be combined with a list published under subsection (3) of this section.

In page 6, line 17, leave out "any such list" and insert:
the lists described in subsection (3) of this section".—[Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan.]

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move Amendment No. 145, in page 6, line 22, at the end to add
but any person who gives notice as provided for in subsection (1) of this section shall be at liberty to represent to the court that any proposed Combination or division of goods into classes is not appropriate".

The Chairman: With this Amendment it will be possible also to discuss Amendments Nos. 146 and 147.

Mr. Irvine: This Amendment deals with the machinery of the Bill governing the operation of lists of classes of goods for the Restrictive Practices Court. The Bill provides that from time to time the Registrar shall publish a list of classes of goods in respect of which notices have been given to him. The Bill goes on, in subsection (4), to say:
For the purposes of compiling any such list or of making references to the Court under the said section 5, the Registrar may combine or divide the goods in respect of which notice is given…
and then the classes of goods as defined by the Registrar are referred to the Court.
The Amendment gives the supplier applying for exemption to the Court the right to represent to the Court, in any case where it is thought appropriate, that the definition of the class of goods to which the Registrar has resorted is, for some reason, unsatisfactory. This may be quite an important matter. No one would wish that an applicant to the Court for exemption should feel that he was in any way prejudiced or disadvantaged because the goods in which he was interested as an applicant were not, in his sense and view of the matter, properly or satisfactorily consigned to a particular form of classification resorted to by the Registrar. If that were so it would make it much more difficult for him to deploy his case before the Court. It seems wholly desirable that in this respect the applicant, in the presentation of his case—this is a procedural matter—should be given every reasonable advantage.
The case may not often arise, but it may none the less occur from time to


time. One can easily place oneself in the position of a supplier desiring to argue his case through counsel before the Court in respect of a particular class or type of goods in which he is interested and finding that his case as presented to the Court is within the context of a classification and allocation of goods made by the Registrar which does not suit the particular supplier's convenience or sense of what is appropriate. Let him have the opportunity of making application to the court.

Mr. Graham Page: I want briefly to support the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) in his Amendment, because the two following Amendments we are discussing with this one, one of which is in my name, only say, in rather more elaborate language, what is said in Amendment No. 145.
The point is that we do not know at this stage what the Registrar will do about classes, whether they will be wide or narrow. We do not know whether, for example, a class will be all cosmetics, all face powders or hair tints or whatever it may be. We do not know whether they will be of specific goods of some description or from wide trades. If any person concerned feels prejudiced by the wide description of class or, on the other hand, by a narrow description, he should be entitled to apply to the Registrar to have the class named. I do not think that this should come under the rules. It is a point of substance, not merely of procedure, which we should mention in the Bill.

Sir H. Linstead: I support the proposal in the Amendment, which raises a point very similar to an Amendment I moved at the beginning of discussion of Clause 5. I sought in that Amendment to ensure that the Court had the right to select certain groups of goods out of the class and to declare that those groups might have the benefit of an exemption even if the whole class in respect of which an application was made should not be exempted. The reply I then got from my hon. Friend the Minister of State was that there was an inherent jurisdiction in the Court to bring such a conclusion about.
I trust that my hon. Friend will be able to say in relation to this Amendment that there is an inherent jurisdiction

in the Court to entertain what is virtually a preliminary appeal from a decision of the Registrar before the main case is entered upon, or, if that is not inherent in the Court, the Bill should be so amended as to make perfectly clear that an appeal from the Registrar can go to the Court before the main case is embarked upon.

Mr. du Cann: As has been said by my hon. Friends the Members for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and Putney (Sir H. Linstead) and the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), the purpose of the three Amendments is to enable a supplier to apply to the Court to include goods within or to exclude goods from the reference made by the Registrar to the Court.
We have already given consideration to this matter and we listened to the arguments put forward in the short debate with some attention. I sympathise with the view that there should be some right of appeal against the Registrar's determination of the goods to be included in the reference. I feel very doubtful whether the right of appeal should extend to persons who are not parties to the proceedings, because there would be great danger in that and it be going too far. None the less, I willingly give the Committee the assurance that if the hon and learned Member is good enough to withdraw the Amendment, we are certainly ready to look at the matter again with a view to putting down an Amendment at a later stage.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am grateful for that undertaking, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(PROVISION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CASES DECIDED BY COURT.)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move Amendment No. 202, in page 6, line 38, after "order", to insert
or the court refused to discharge an order previously made".
At this point the Committee is concerned with the provisions for reconsideration of cases decided by the Court,


and what may be thought a fairly complex series of time limits is imposed by subsection (3) dealing with the treatment of such applications for reconsideration. An Amendment which has been on the Notice Paper would have left the matter entirely to be determined in the discretion of the Court for leave, but that has gone, and, in the Bill we have this fairly elaborate timetable provision.
I stand to be corrected, but in my understanding of the Bill, by what may be possibly, though perhaps this will be thought unlikely, a drafting oversight, the proposed time restriction is not made applicable in a case in which the Court has refused to discharge an order previously made. The two-year period is made applicable commencing from the refusal of the Court to make an order or from the date of the making of an order. Those two cases are provided for, but the additional case of the Court refusing to discharge an order previously made does not appear to be covered.
Let us suppose that the Court has made an order in the first place and that there has been an application for the Court to discharge the order and the Court has refused to discharge it. It seems that application for the case to be reconsidered in that context can in theory be made immediately afterwards. The applicant in such a case, I concede, would most likely be the Registrar, and I agree that he would not act oppressively. None the less, it is desirable that the process of time limitation in this matter should, first, be spelled out comprehensively in the Bill and also should apply equally between the parties, the applicant, on the one hand, and the Registrar, on the other.
What it comes to is this. As the Bill stands, no restriction in point of time is applied to the case where the Court refuses to discharge an order previously made. It would seem that the Bill would be a better Bill if this were corrected.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. du Cann: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) for giving us the benefit of his advice on this matter. His basic point is that he feels that the Clause is not satisfactory as it stands.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: In this respect.

Mr. du Cann: Indeed—in this somewhat limited respect. I note that. Again, we have been considering this matter. Although I do not accept at the moment everything that the hon. and learned Gentleman said, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would like to consider the whole question afresh. I therefore hope that with this assurance the hon. and learned Gentleman will be good enough to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Irvine: On that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move Amendment No. 195, in page 6, line 39, to leave out from "Court" to end of line 42.
The Committee is concerned with the case of leave being sought to reopen a case. As the Bill stands, this can be given only in the context of there being available prima facie evidence of a material change in relevant circumstances which the applicant seeking to reopen the ease can offer to the Court. Some of us on this side think—we should be interested to hear the Government's reaction on this—that this provision might be open to some objection.
The character of the objection can be illustrated in this way. There might be a case where an applicant for exemption, wanting, as I express it, to reopen his case, did not have any different or additional evidence from that which he had previously brought before the Court on an earlier application by him—the same proofs from the same witnesses, let us say—but he might reasonably think that external factors not immediately affecting his own business or concern but factors of a kind arising in wide economic terms—what is sometimes in the modern jargon described as the social and economic climate—had changed and that, because these had changed, an argument which had been unsuccessful a short time previously would now stand a reasonable chance of being successful before the judges.
We are in doubt as to whether changes in circumstances which are


changes not in the narrow point of evidence which the applicant can bring forward in his proofs of witnesses but changes in the general character of the economic climate prevailing at the time come within the ambit of the expression "relevant circumstances" in the Clause.
If the Minister will assure us that he has been advised that the expression "relevant circumstances" would cover that sort of matter so that the applicant in such a context would not be confronted with the sort of difficulties I have suggested might arise, I do not think my hon. Friends would wish to pursue the matter further. We want an assurance that the matter will come within the ambit of the expression "relevant circumstances" or that it will be looked at again by the Government.

Mr. du Cann: I can deal with this Amendment quickly. The answer is "Yes"—providing that the circumstances which the Court has to consider are relevant to the issue before it. I hope that, with this assurance, the hon. and learned Member will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Irvine: I am grateful for that assurance, so clearly and unqualifiedly given. Nevertheless, I feel some anxiety on the point. It will be for the Court to determine the sense of relevant circumstances, and it might be arguable either way. However, the Minister has given the assurance which I sought, although the point can remain in our minds for a little longer.

Mr. du Cann: I might be able to assist the hon. and learned Member further if I say that we will consider what he has said when we have a chance of reading his remarks in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is fair for me to point out that in our view there are other substantial objections to the Amendment. I was more concerned in the few remarks I made to answer the point which he had directly in mind, and while I am sure that the answer I gave is correct, we are perfectly prepared to re-read the hon. and learned Member's remarks.

Mr. Irvine: In that case I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(PROCEDURE IN RESPECT OF APPLICATIONS AND REFERENCES.)

Mr. du Cann: I beg to move Amendment No. 183 in page 7, line 5, to leave out from "regulations" to "and" in line 7 and to insert
for the purposes of registration under section 6 of this Act and for purposes connected therefith".
It might be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss, at the same time, Amendments Nos. 184, 207, and 208.

The Chairman: If that is convenient to the Committee.

Mr. du Cann: All four Amendments are consequential on Amendments relating to the registration procedure which the Committee has already discussed. They are new subjects, so to speak, and the Committee may wish me to say something about them.
Amendment No. 183 replaces some words dealing with the Registrar's power to make regulations with respect to the giving of notices which would now be inappropriate. The Committee will appreciate that the words had to be changed. Amendment No. 184 is purely consequential on that one and I need not weary the Committee with the details.
Amendment No. 207 is designed simply to enable the Registrar to apply by the regulations any of the provisions under Section 11 of the 1956 Act, which deals with the register under that Act, for the purposes of the register to be kept by him under the Bill. In particular, the Registrar will be able, with the consent of the Treasury, to charge fees for supplying copies of entries on the register. Amendment No. 208 is purely technical, and consequential on No. 207.
In other words, all these Amendments are consequential on the new registration procedure, and, the Committee having accepted other Amendments to establish that procedure, I hope that it will think it right to approve these Amendments also.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 7, line 8, leave out "such notice" and insert:
notice claiming registration in respect of goods".

In line 16, leave out from beginning to "1956" in line 17 and insert:
(c) for applying in relation to the register kept under the said section 6, subject to such

modifications as may be prescribed by the regulations, any of the provisions of section 11 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956 (general provisions as to the register under that Act);
and subsections (2) to (4) of section 19 of the said Act of".

In line 18, leave out "such regulations" and insert "regulations under this subsection".—[Mr. Heath.]

Mr. A. R. Wise: I beg to move Amendment No. 162, in page 7, line 29, at the end to insert "6 or".

The Chairman: With this Amendment it will also be possible to discuss Amendment No. 176.

Mr. Wise: The purpose of this Amendment is to allow payment of costs to successful applicants. It is widely drawn, and covers a very wide range of possible successful applicants. I know that objection will be taken to this and to a certain extent, it reasonably could be taken—on the grounds that whenever Parliament alters the law, anyone affected by that alteration will be able to profit at the expense of the Treasury. The fact remains that we are dealing with a class of persons who, hitherto, have not only had the protection of the law but have had the reinforcement of the law in carrying out what was fully allowed under the 1956 Act. These persons are now, through no fault of their own—and certainly through no malpractice on their part—suddenly declared to be outside the law. They therefore have to justify their case all over again, and that does not seem to be equitable.
I think that as they are about to be put in peril solely by the House of Commons, they have some moral claim not to be mulcted heavily in addition for justifying the rights they have en-enjoyed now for eight full years. I believe that my right hon. Friend is prepared to make some move in this direction. I should welcome any small crumbs that can be thrown from the table, but I still hold that in ethics this claim is justified. I put it to my right hon. Friend that if his interpretation of the Bill is such that there will not be very many successful applications to the Restrictive Practices Court, he is not committing the Treasury to very much expenditure. If, on the other hand, my interpretation is correct, he will be doing a just and proper thing by allowing costs to those who are successful.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. W. Wells: As we understand the Amendments, the second of them extends to successful applicants what is the invariable right of successful applicants in our courts that when they have established their rights it is within

the discretion of the courts to award them the cost of bringing the proceedings. This appears to me to be the position in respect of proceedings under Clause 5, but I do not understand so well the Amendment in so far as it applies to Clause 6. However, we would certainly think that what is proposed is just in relation to Clause 5 and we would hope that at some later stage, if not now, an Amendment will be incorporated in the Bill to give effect to that part at least of the hon. Member's Amendment.

Mr. Graham Page: We have in the Bill left the decisions on exemptions and so on to the Court. This has been decided and debated on several Amendments and it is quite clear that this is the basis of the Bill. Having left the decisions to the Court, this is litigation however one looks at it, and it is litigation pure and simple. It is not litigation before an administrative tribunal or a matter of administrative decisions. I should have thought that in these circumstances the ordinary rules relative to costs in the courts should apply, that is, that the costs should follow the event and the successful party should receive his costs and the unsuccessful party should pay the costs.
If we do not apply that general rule of litigation it may be entirely prohibitive to those who wish to bring their case before the Court. The prospect of running the risk of paying the costs may be so great that persons entitled to rights under the Bill will fear taking their rights. To that extent we shall be denying them justice. It is unlikely that those who wish to claim rights under the Bill will be entitled to legal aid. They will have the funds of their business behind them. It cannot, therefore, be said that we are not denying them justice because they will have the opportunity to apply for legal aid. It may be that they will have long and expensive preparation of the case before they appear in Court and I fear that we may do grave injustice to those who have rights under the Bill if we deny them the normal rules about costs in the courts.

The Attorney-General (Sir John Hobson): There may be a strong argument for applying the ordinary rule on


costs to the proceedings before the tribunal, but that is not what the Amendment proposes to do. The ordinary rule is that if a person goes to court and fails he is at risk of having to pay not only his own costs but his opponent's. As the Bill is drafted, an applicant can go to the Court without being at any risk at all, having failed in his application of having to pay the Registrar's costs. The Bill provides that in one set of circumstances only the Court may order the Registrar to pay the citizen's costs.
This Amendment does not introduce a system by which, at first instance, the applicant may get his costs but would he at the risk of having to pay the other side's costs. The Amendment would only enable the Court to order the payment by the Registrar of the costs of the parties in the original application, and would not put the parties in the original application at any risk at all.
As Clause 8 is drafted at present, it permits an order for costs to be made against the Registrar in one case only, and that is where the Court has reviewed, under Clause 7, its previous decision exempting or refusing to exempt goods. In such a case under Clause 7, the Court may award costs against the Registrar only if the supplier is successful. In no case, even under Clause 7, can the applicant be ordered to pay the Registrar's costs even though the Registrar were successful.
The object of the Amendment is to secure the prospect of a one-sided benefit, for the benefit of the applicant against the Registrar, which has been granted under an application on second hearing under Clause 7 for the hearing at first instance. This cannot, in my submission, he right. There cannot be any justification in putting forward an Amendment under which a Registrar would be at risk but the applicant would not. For these reasons, I submit that this Amendment should not be accepted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Wise) mentioned that there might be some cases of hardship, and certainly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider whether there may not be some instances in which it may be possible to consider whether something should be done in relation to costs,

though it could not be general provision that an applicant who was successful at first instance would get his costs and, if he failed, would not have to pay the Registrar's.

Mr. Wise: In view of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, I am encouraged to a certain extent to hope that at least some of my contentions will be met. In fact, I still hold that as it is we who have put these people to this expense, and no action of their own, we still have an obligation. But in view of the fact that I am surveying the prospects of a Division with very little hope of succeeding therein, I am not prepared to waste the time of the Committee by marching into the Lobby.
I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Milne: I beg to move Amendment No. 163, in page 7, line 33, after "retailers", to insert:
and trade associations representing employees in the distributive trades".

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir R. Grimston): It will be convenient to take Amendment No. 164 with this Amendment.

Mr. Milne: This Amendment seeks to make provision in the rules of procedure for the Restrictive Practices Court to have trade unions representing distributive workers who have an interest in any proceedings under the Bill, entitled to be represented in these proceedings in exactly the same way as the retailers.
When discussing this principle on an earlier Clause the Minister pointed out that this matter would be raised at a later stage, and if I heard him aright and read the interpretation of his words correctly he was prepared to look at this point sympathetically.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned in the course of the debate on that Clause—and it comes within the context of this Clause—that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) in the Second Reading debate stated that distributive workers had little to fear in relation to the Bill and that conditions, as he rightly said, had altered in the interval.
My hon. Friend said, speaking from the trade union angle,
I am not unduly fearful about the passing of the Bill, but I believe it to be my bounden duty, before making a few practical trade union points, to warn everybody that it will not solve the problems of the distributive trades…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 10th March, 1964; Vol. 690, c. 297.]
He had earlier made a similar reference to the same point, but at this hour I shall not weary the Committee with further quotation.
There arises under this Clause a point where the legitimate interests of distributive workers may be affected, and the right of those workers or their trade unions to be represented should, I am sure, be established.

Mr. Heath: The hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) is quite right in what he says about my approach to this question at an earlier stage. I was intending to indicate that I would consider the point sympathetically. Somewhat to my surprise, his right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and others poured a considerable amount of scorn upon this proposed facility. They said that they thought, on the whole, that it was useless and of no value. They asked what was the point in having it if the interests of retailers and distributive workers were not to be included under Clause 5.
I am still perfectly prepared to consider it sympathetically, but I should like to feel that it was genuinely required on behalf of distributive workers. There is the point that providing for this facility could mean that a case would take longer, with additional burden on the parties involved, and so on. All that must be borne in mind, but, if there is a genuine desire that the facility should be made available in the same way as there is provision in the Bill for retailers, I shall, if the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to withdraw his Amendment, consider it sympathetically between now and the Report stage.

Mr. Graham Page: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be deterred by any scorn poured on this proposal from the other side of the Committee. It is a most important Amendment. My right hon. Friend gave an assurance at

an earlier stage that he would consider it seriously.
Clause 8(3), to which this is a proposed Amendment, is extremely beneficial in allowing retailers to come in and put their case, and it is just as important, in my submission, that the employees in the distributive trades should put their case. It has been said that certain hon. Members opposite did not think that it would go far enough, but this should not deter my right hon. Friend from carrying in to effect the assurance which he gave.
I hope that he will introduce something in suitable form to achieve the object which we have in mind. It will not necessarily be in the form of the Amendments before us now, for this reason. Retailers do not have to come in under an association or union of any kind. They are allowed in merely as retailers. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind that some distributive workers are not bonded together in an association or union, and I do not think that one ought to restrict their intervention to intervention through a union. They should be let in in the same way as the Bill lets in retailers, and my right hon. Friend should, I suggest, use some such expression as "distributive workers" which would have that result.

Mr. W. Wells: I hope that the Secretary of State will act as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has suggested. It is quite right, of course, that we were disappointed when the right hon. Gentleman would not accede to the argument that both retailers and employees had such an interest under Clause 5 as entitled them to take the initiative in proceedings thereunder. But this is not to say that it is not an important right to be able to appear once the proceedings have been initiated. Surely, it is clear from the arguments adduced by my hon. Friend that this is an important matter.
10.45 p.m.
I understood the right hon. Gentleman to give a clear undertaking that he would, in any circumstances, consider the matter sympathetically, and I trust that the fact that we were disappointed on one Amendment will not deter him from carrying out the undertaking which he has given on this one.

Mr. Milne: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has said, I was not pouring scorn upon the Minister's remarks. I was extremely grateful for the points that were made. I well understand the apprehension concerning the time taken by the Court, because when we are dealing with 100,000 self-employed retailers and 350,000 distributive workers, the question of time can be important.
The words already in the Clause are a safeguard in this matter, because it states at line 35 that retailers shall be represented
if they have an interest in the proceedings…whether in consequence of a representation order or otherwise…before the Court".
The Court could, therefore, take care of the question of which members of the distributive trades were entitled to be represented at any hearing. Safeguards on this matter are already in the Clause and I am grateful for the assurances which have been given.

Mr. Heath: I feel encouraged in well doing by the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and of the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells), as well as by what has been said by the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne). Therefore, we will see what can be done for the Report stage.

Mr. Jay: I welcome the Minister's statement. Although I have not heard the whole of this discussion, I heard the Minister imply a slight doubt as to the attitude of the organised distributive workers when he said that if there were a clear wish, he would take account of it. The presence of the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) at the head of the names to Amendment No. 164 is clear evidence that there is a wish on behalf of the organised distributive workers that the Minister should meet us on this point. As the Minister knows, the only reason why my hon. Friend is not here today is that he has obligations to the distributive workers, and I am sure that he would wish to give a clear affirmative answer to that question.

Mr. Milne: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 and 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.—(INTERPRETATI0N.)

Mr. John Harvey: I beg to move Amendment No. 170, in page 8, line 34, at the end, to insert:
seasonal sale" means a sale held not more than twice a year for periods of not longer than two consecutive weeks in order to dispose of goods which have not been specifically acquired for the purpose of being sold at such a seasonal sale.
clearance sale" means a sale held for a period of not longer than three weeks in order to dispose of goods which have not been specifically acquired for the purpose of the sale by a firm or business that is permanently ceasing to sell the type of goods offered at such a clearance sale in the shop premises in which the sale is held.
At a much earlier stage in our deliberations on Clause 3, I made the point that in view of the fact that in page 3, line 30, appear the words
(otherwise titan at seasonal or clearance sales)
It seemed important that we should seek during the course of the Bill to define what was meant by "seasonal or clearance sales".
When I drive home from the House of Commons at night, I pass a shop in North London which has had a clearance sale for as many years as I have been driving past it. I am sure that cannot be intended to come within the meaning of Clause 3.
In trying my hand at drafting Amendments to so important a Measure I have benefited from a little more qualified advice. The definitions put in the Amendment seem to me to be both reasonable and worthy of consideration. "Seasonal sale" I suggest should be
…a sale held not more than twice a year for periods of not longer than two consecutive weeks…
This is in accord with reasonable and normal practice in reputable stores with their summer and winter sales for the disposal of s surplus lines.
A clearance sale is taken in my Amendment to be
…a sale held for a period of not longer than three weeks in order to dispose of goods which have not been specifically acquired for the purpose of the sale by a firm or business


that is permanently ceasing to sell the type of goods offered at such a clearance sale in the shop premises in which the sale is held.
If that definition were accepted I do not think that it would create any sort of difficulty for the average, ordinary trader because the casual surpluses that he builds up would be saleable in seasonal sales. The clearance sale would presumably be something instituted only if he were closing down or selling out or ceasing to trade in a particular type of goods on those premises.
I believe that everything one could reasonably expect is caught under these two definitions. One or two shopkeepers have written to me since this Amendment was published in the trade papers. They seem to fear that it would prevent them from selling in sales goods specifically acquired for a sale. Of course they would not be prevented from so doing. All that these definitions would do would be to apply to Clause 3 and therefore to the conditions under which a supplier could withhold supplies or cause or procure any other suppliers to do so if a shop indulged in loss-leading.
The Amendment, therefore, has to be taken together with Clause 3. If the form of words does not commend itself to my right hon. Friend then I would be happy if he undertook to try his own more expert hand at finding a definition more satisfactory. I hope that he will at least agree that the very fact that Clause 3 refers to seasonal or clearance sales makes it necessary somewhere in the Bill to attempt to define what we mean by such sales.

Mr. Harold Lever: For the benefit of those hon. Members who, like myself, would like clarification I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us the Government's view of what constitutes a clearance sale. Most hon. Members who have to legislate on these rather out of the way points have never actually experienced a clearance sale. All we have seen of them is posters in the windows. I did not want to continue the debate until I had heard him.

Mr. Heath: I know that my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members have given a great deal of thought to this problem. When the Bill was first presented it spoke

of seasonal sales and clearance sales. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), a clearance sale is a sale held by a retailer in order to clear rapidly stock which he no longer wishes to keep, and which he is therefore disposed to sell at a lower price, in order to bring fresh stock in, in the normal way.
After the Bill was presented we gave thought to the question whether there should be a more specific definition of these classes of sale, along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend—by defining the number of occasions in the year when they could be held and the length of time during which they could be held—but we came to the conclusion as we did on other occasions, including Clause 3 itself, when we attempted to be specific about the nature of loss-leading, that to adopt that procedure would introduce a considerable element of rigidity into the process, and that the best way was to amend the Clause by inserting the word "genuine" before "seasonal sales" and "clearance sales."
There is no doubt that the supplier is quite well able to judge whether a retailer is carrying on a genuine clearance sale or seasonal sale, or whether he is indulging in the type of activity to which my hon. Friend has referred by displaying the notice "Clearance Sale" permanently in his window. In the latter case the supplier could take action if he wanted to, and if that action were challenged it would go to the Court.
I suggest that it is better that the Court should judge, on the evidence, whether the sale was a genuine seasonal or clearance sale, and adjudicate accordingly, rather than that we should try to lay down a specific definition such as my hon. Friend suggests, and limit it as he does. To limit a seasonal sale to being held twice yearly is a strict limitation for most trades. We recognise at least four seasons in the calendar.
Again, on the point about a clearance sale, it is for the retailer to decide whether he wants to clear stocks which he no longer wants to hold, in order to take on fresh stocks. I suggest that we can best meet the point by the Amendment we have made, which introduces the word "genuine" into the definition, and then leave the Court, on the evidence, to decide whether this was


a genuine case, or whether the retailer was disguising a perpetual sale by using misleading labels. I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that we have thought about this a great deal. We have tried to find the best solution. I think that it is better for the Court to give its decision when the matter is challenged.

Mr. H. Lever: I am glad that I made a brief intervention, seeking clarity. The result of hearing the Secretary of State has been to reinforce the shock I felt at the whole manner in which the Bill has been prepared and presented. Here we have a situation where a man is compelled to supply a trader who demands supplies from him, under pain of unlimited damages for breach of statutory duty if he wrongly withholds goods. The question whether he is entitled to withhold them depends on his assessment whether the man to whom he is supplying the goods is guilty of loss leading, whatever this new language introduced in the Bill means.
He mast assess whether the man who is demanding supplies from him has been guilty of loss leading. This may depend on whether the man has been having a genuine clearance sale. When we seek to find out what a clearance sale is we find that there are 10 or 20 ideas on the subject. Some hon. Members would regard a clearance sale as being testable in point of time—that is to say, if a trader is having a clearance sale more or less all the year round it is not a genuine clearance sale. But why not? Why cannot a man have a clearance sale for six months of the year?
From the Secretary of State's definition it sounded like an ordinary sale of any ordinary articles. He said when a trader has stock and wants to clear it, then it is a clearance sale. I thought that was why traders take stock in the first place—not as a sort of aesthetic adornment of their establishments but to clear or sell it out of the place. In terms of time, we are not very much helped by the suggestion of the Secretary of State. He has not told us whether he would regard a man as not have a genuine clearance sale if he had it all the year round.
11.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. J Harvey) obviously thinks it is not a clearance sale if he is clearing all the year round. If he were a supplier and he came to the conclusion that the person he was supplying was not holding a genuine clearance sale because he was clearing all the year round, and he refused supplies he may face an action for damages, be ruined by it, bankrupted, and incidentally disqualified from sittting in the House of Commons, a; a result of not being able to define a genuine clearance sale. We could lose a very valuable Member of the House simply because he took a different view of what was a clearance sale, which most Members would consider lamentable. I do not think that the hon. Member wishes to expose the manufactures of this country to financial ruin and lawsuits for unlimited damages. He should have some precision in what it is that entitles him to refuse supplies to a retailer.
The Secretary of State has descended to the depths of illogicality when he says, "I am a reasonable chap. Since you do not understand what a sale is and want it defined more sharply, I am going to solve your difficulties. I am going to insert the word 'genuine' before the word 'sale'."
By this sort of logic, if we did not know what a dishwasher was and found the term ambiguous, our difficulties could be solved by inserting the word "genuine" before the word "dishwasher" We could make the character and description of an object clearer by talking about a "genuine" dishwasher or a "genuine" clearance sale.
Let us start with the assumption that a clearance sale might be regarded as the unknowable, indefinable or very unclear and ambiguous. Now we have a genuine, unclear; ambiguous, unknowable and indefinable condition that entitles a manufacturer to refuse supplies. But if he has the definition wrong and is ruined by the Secretary of State, who is supposed to represent and encourage the leaders of industry in this country. I feel very sorry for the manufacturer. One can imagine board meetings where the manages says, "We have this man in Manchester who wants supplies and who says he will sue us for unlimited


damages if we do not supply him." The chairman says, "I am not going to supply him because I think he has been having some clearance sales that were not genuine." The other chap says, "How do you know? What is a genuine clearance sale?"
The Secretary of State obviously did not know what a clearance sale was, because he did not venture to give any definition of it to the House of Commons. The one he did give was plainly a definition of every sale that takes place in any shop at any time, so a clearance sale is any sale or anything any judge cares to think it means. When we asked him to define it so the manufacturer may have some plain words to guide him, the Secretary of State thought he had done his job by inserting the word "genuine". He confers upon the High Court judges, with their vast experience in clearance sales, the duty of defining whether a man shall be ruined or not depending on whether a clearance sale was genuine or not. It is monstrous.
I submit we are failing in our duty if we do not exact from the Secretary of State a better undertaking than merely to insert the word "genuine", which adds nothing to the clarity of the term whatever, and if the Committee does not insist on a better definition of the duties, obligations and rights with some greater sharpness than has been the case so far.

Sir John Eden: Could the hon. Member help us by suggesting a form of words which might be suitable to him?

Mr. Lever: This is not my Bill. Although I do my best to make modest contributions from time to time to our debates, I do not think I am called on to be a Government draftsman. It is for the Government to draft their Bills, not for hon. Members to do so.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Would not the criterion be what is "the dominant purpose of the sale"—to use the words in a famous judgment in another context with which the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) will be very familiar? If the dominant purpose is to effect a commercial sale for the best price available, that is one thing. If it is to clear stock to make way for

other stock, that is a clearance sale because the dominant purpose is not the commercial one of making the best profit, but simply to replace other stock. Is not that the logical distinction between the two?
Perhaps while I am asking these questions I may ask the hon. Member another one. He referred to his serious sense of shock. May I ask what has lulled it in the last few days and what has re-stimulated it to bring us the pleasure of his company tonight?

Mr. Lever: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) for his very helpful intervention. He also will realise that, if anything, he has corroborated the need for a closer definition because he has been saying that the Court will have to inquire into the mind of the man who is selling. It will have to know whether he sold an article in this way to attract custom by selling at a loss or simply to dispose and get rid of it. It becomes a psychological question for the High Court judge. As well as having to decide what is and what is not a clearance sale, he will have to investigate the psychological condition and motive in the mind of the man making the sale.
If the right hon. and learned Member wants a Roland for his Oliver:
The devil himself knoweth not what is in the mind of man.
It is this unknown quantity which the Secretary of State suggests should be explored, but it is something with which the judge will not be particularly familiar.
The right hon. and learned Member also asked whether my sense of shock and resentment about the Bill was lulled in the last few days. It was because I had not wanted in any way to delay or engage in any unnecessary argument about the Bill. I felt that the most helpful thing in the last few days was not to interfere with the serious family warfare, the fratricidal and suicidal strife which was raging in the Conservative Party. Some of us have a sense of tact. It was only when I came into the Committee and found the atmosphere of benign, brotherly affection existing for the first time for a considerable period between the Government and their supposed supporters that I felt able to inter-


vene without, as it were, opening a wound. The right hon. and learned Member must acquit me of anything but the kindest motives in the prevailing atmosphere in the Conservative Party.
I also did not interfere because I hoped that the Secretary of State would not be in the vitriolic mood he was in not long ago.

Mr. Shepherd: Will the hon. Member help us by telling us exactly why he came here tonight?

Mr. Lever: I do not wish to lengthen my intervention, but I thought this was a serious point and it was raised in all seriousness. The fact that I raised it in, I hope, not an excessively tedious way, does not alter the fact that I came in to hear the debate. Many hon. Members do so and many do not—as can be seen by the numbers on the benches on this side of the Committee and the numbers opposite. I happened to come in to hear the debate and had no special view until I heard hon. Members on the Government benches and the totally unsatisfactory reply of the Secretary of State. I submit in all seriousness that we have failed in our duty in relation to this Bill in that we have imposed on people obligations of a most grave character
The right hon. Gentleman does not challenge the accuracy of this. One of the mischiefs of this mischievous Bill is that the supplier, before refusing supplies, has to take it upon himself to determine whether it is a clearance sale or is likely to be held by the High Court judge to be a clearance sale. He has no means of deciding except by sticking out his neck and risking total ruin if he makes a wrong decision about whether there has been a clearance sale.
I urge the Minister not to be content with words such as "genuine". He should not take it for granted that the legislature or the High Court or manufacturers are experts and authoritative on the question of what is a clearance sale. When he studies his words in HANSARD he will see that he left the matter in the greatest state of vagueness and doubt. I know that he is an open-minded man when he is not discussing the Leader of the Opposition and that he will look at this matter with candour

and afresh to try to put it in sharper and more reasonable form from the point of view of those who incur liabilities as a result of the Clause.

Mr. Jay: Whether the Committee has suffered a substantial, genuine detriment by losing my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield. Brightside (Mr. Winter-bottom) and gaining my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), I do not know. Nevertheless, some of us on this side of the Committee believe that on this point the Minister has probably found the best solution.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13.—(SAVING FOR STATUTORY SCHEMES.)

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Graham Page: May I ask my right hon. Friend what is likely to be exempt by the Clause, which reads:
Nothing it this Act shall apply to any agreement which is expressly authorised by any enactment, or by any scheme, order or other instrument made under any enactment, or to anything done pursuant to any such agreement, scheme, order or instrument.
What are the agreements likely to come within the Clause? I have a grave suspicion that it gives unfair advantage to the nationalised industries since they are operating under enactments all the time. Would this agreement, authorised by Statute, apply, for example, to electrical Foods supplied by the Electricity Loard or Post Office telephones, whether black, white or pale pink, or to coal? I know that the Clause comes wholly from the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, but here we are dealing with retail goods, and I suppose that under the schemes there might be exempt milk, Lion eggs, potatoes and white fish. One can think of various schemes under which the goods might be exempt by virtue of the Clause. May we know what the Clause is intended to cover?

Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is quite right. It is based on the 1956 Act.


It is not intended to apply to the nationalised industries, and I think that in the case which he mentioned it would in any case be a direct supply by the Board which is manufacturing and then selling. But it would deal with statutory bodies, for example statutory marketing schemes. I hope that that answers his question.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Jay: Will it apply to sales of copies of this Bill by the Stationery Office?

Mr. Heath: The products of the Stationery Office are not subject to r.p.m. If anybody buys copies of the Bill and likes to sell them at half price, nobody could stop that from happening.

Mr. H. Lever: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has done a service in emphasising the importance of this little Clause, particularly since it exposes the hypocrisy of the Government in bringing in the Bill. All the Clause does is to produce an exempted area whereby a practice which is condemned and disallowed by the rest of the Measure, on pain of ruining a man's business, may continue in other areas where the Government are concerned. This shows that what is regarded as dishonest exploitation of the public for the purposes of demagogy before the election, in the rest of the Bill is regarded as permissible, wholesome and orderly marketing and a desirable practice when it is covered by Statute. The Government may thus sell or arrange to sell goods under conditions in which another manufacturer or distributor may find himself in trouble. The Government will do things although, in precisely similar conditions, private people will find that they are doing something illegal and will be ruined.
Why should some things be bad for the rest of industry and automatically right in other cases which are covered by enactments? The interesting point about this is that we are not talking about future enactments—legislation passed by an enlightened Government who have seen the light and know how necessary it is not to disrupt the marketing arrangements which have been in force and which are vital to some trades—but about enactments of years past. We are talking about enactments when schemes and arrangements covering price, distribution and marketing

were brought in by this and previous Governments, long before they had seen the light; long before they had become nineteenth century free traders.
Why should we keep these schemes in force? Should we not—in the light of the new scientific and competitive approach which has been brought about by the Prime Minister and his colleagues, with their vast experience of industry, distribution and manufacture—be told which schemes are desirable and which are not?
If the Clause is added to the Bill in its present form we will be giving a blanket authorisation to all schemes enacted at any time and concerned with price fixing or anything else. Has the Secretary of State examined all the schemes which will be exempted from the operation of the Bill by the Clause? Can he conscientiously tell the Committee that he considers that they should all be exempted? We are entitled to know, before exempting a whole batch of distribution and pricing schemes from the operation of the Measure, more than we have so far heard about them. Is he certain that these schemes should remain as a result of the splendid provisons he is introducing to disrupt the marketing arrangements of everyone else? How strange it would be if it proved that there were great numbers of these schemes and that not one was against the public interest. It seems extraordinary that, the Minister having proceeded throughout on the presumption that all price-fixing schemes are harmful to the public interest, every single scheme he is now exempting should turn out to be in the public interest. I do not expect the Secretary of State to list them all, but can he tell me of the major areas where the exemptions will apply and where the Bill will cease to apply, with all its benevolent effects? Can we know where the Government propose that the so-called "rat race" shall continue in full vigour? I do not expect a retail catalogue, but we are entitled to know the major schemes that will be affected, and whether the Minister is aware of them and approves them.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: After listening to the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) and to my hon. Friend the Member for


Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), I am puzzled to know why these items cannot be dealt with by the normal processes of the Bill. The gateways should be good enough for these commodities.
I have a little information about the three items mentioned. The Stationery Office gives the most miserable margin of profit of any book publishers. I am a newsagent, and I know that the wholesalers will scarcely handle Stationery Office publications because of that miserable margin. Again, there is a completely free market in eggs which, at this time of year, are very often used for price cutting. I would hate to see the price of eggs stabilised by this Clause.
The argument advanced in favour of the Bill is that we must have modernisation in distribution, but our milk trade is far behind that of other countries, where one can get things known as "half-and-half." I have sold skim milk at twice the price of ordinary milk to people wanting to slim. I am convinced that the Milk Marketing Board, because of this type of price control, would prove the point of the whole Bill; the fact that there is a resale price has held back the diversification of milk products. I ask my right hon. Friend to take this Clause back and see whether it can be dropped before Third Reading, and so allow commodities to go through the normal gateway.

Mr. Heath: On my hon. Friend's last point, the products he mentioned are not subject to resale price maintenance, in any case, so they are not affected by this Clause. The reason why these schemes are excluded is that Parliament has laid down and approved their nature, and if a certain scheme is to be changed it should be changed by Parliament in an enactment or order concerned with that scheme. That is the way in which our procedure works—either in the presence or the absence of the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever)—and I suggest that we adhere to that procedure. That is why we have this arrangement.
I should have thought that, remembering the views the hon. Member for Cheetham expressed on the first day of this Committee stage—and now on its last day—he would have welcomed the exclusion of these schemes, because he is strongly—indeed, bitterly—opposed to

the whole policy of the Bill, and this should be an indication of the flexibility for which has been asking. If a return to what he hon. Member likes to describe as my "vitriolic manner" would be such a shock as to make him leave our proceedings, I will, of course, at once see what I can do.

Mr. H. Lever: At the risk of bringing that upon myself, I must place it on record that me Minister is neither able nor willing say what schemes are mainly affected. Are we merely dealing with a minor matter, and allowing to be dropped some scheme approved somewhere in 1880, or are we excluding vast areas of the economy of the country? The right hon. Gentleman is far too intelligent really to believe his own argument. He knows why I am protesting, not at the exemption but at the Bill itself, and the point I am seeking to make is quite a logical one and a reasonable one by an opponent of the Bill.
I am saying that it is illogical and unjust for a Government that profess that price-fixing and price maintenance schemes are unfair to the public, and ought if they are to continue to be justified by an independent tribunal to exempt en masse a whole group of schemes which have precisely this objective and which other people have to justify before an impartial tribunal.
Surely Conservatives would say that what is good enough for private enterprise groups is good enough for all the other groups, public owned or private. I cannot understand why people who are exempted in this way should not be at least indicated to us. The point made by the Secretary of State is quite hopeless in his own defence. He says that these are different from the schemes of price fixing which private manufacturers have made. These are schemes which bear the sacred imprimatur of the Legislature self. But the right hon. Gentleman does not answer the point which I made before, that the Legislature which gave that imprimatur was a different one from the one at present passing this obnoxious Bill, obnoxious at least to me.
The Legislature hitherto has allowed price-fixing schemes to go on and has not disapproved of them. It is that Legisla-


ture which has authorised these schemes. In fact, so far the Legislature has not only allowed price fixing but has as recently as the previous Act on the subject actually added to the powers of the price-fixing manufacturer by enabling him to sue a man who never contracted with him, a procedure of which even I am not in support.
Ought not the House of Commons, which has now seen the light and which proposes to pass this Bill and destroy all these schemes which have been enforceable hitherto by virtue of legislative action by the House and which wants to make people justify them, to examine the previous Acts which had not this enlightened and modern view and which were passed by a House of Commons which had not such an enlightened and experienced Prime Minister? It was only when this modern and experienced young public man came into the House with his vast knowledge of the industrial, economic and trading world on which our lives and future and export trade depend and who could not bear the antiquated state into which we had got ourselves in the legislation on the subject that we had to have this Bill.
Now that we have come to the new and modern view, why cannot we examine these antiquated schemes under which the aircraft industry and the Milk Marketing Board operate? I confess that I do not know, and I suspect that other hon. Members do not know, what schemes are covered by provisions of the Bill. In all earnestness and seriousness I think that the Minister should not take advantage of the fact that I did not intervene in the last two days of the debate. I do not think that this entitles the right hon. Gentleman to ride off of the question and to treat a perfectly reasonable argument as if it were a late night frivolity.
I am pointing out that the Minister says that the Bill compels people who have price maintenance schemes to go before an impartial tribunal and to show that they are not against the public interest if they propose to enforce them. This Clause says that any such schemes as were at any time in the past authorised by Parliament from 1880 onwards, or even before—from Domesday on-

wards—shall remain in force without any examination whatsoever.
11.30 p.m.
I am not against this in principle but I ask, and the Committee has a duty to ensure that it knows, whether, first, the Minister has examined the schemes to make sure, if we are not to have judicial process applied to them, whether or not they are against the public interest. Can the right hon. Gentleman honestly put his hand on his heart and tell us now that he has examined all the schemes affected or that he even knows how many there are? Can he say that he has come to an impartial conclusion and has decided that all, without exception, are not against the public interest?
Unless the Committee is more erudite than I am, it does not even know how many schemes are affected. I invite the Minister even now to tell us how many are affected and what are the major areas involved. If there is but one of the schemes that is not in the public interest, let it be abolished if we are to move into this new enlightened age. Why should it have this blanket benefit?
What possible harm could it do if all the schemes had to pass through the gateways and come before the tribunal? Let us suppose that the tribunal turns down one of these schemes and says that it is against the public interest, or that it even says that it is not. How sure would we be then? So far we have not had the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that he has examined them and has come to the conclusion that they are in the public interest.
The assumption that these schemes are in some way privileged because Parliament has approved them simply will not do, because the Parliament is the same Parliament that approved restrictive practices in the past. Equally we are not entitled to take for granted that a Parliament which has approved restrictive practices in the past will approve this type of legislation in the present. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to detail all, but I want him to say which are the main schemes that will be exempted by reason of the Clause. If he does not tell us, I shall know that he is not being discourteous. I shall simply not believe that he knows, and if he does not tell us I shall assert that he has passed a blanket exemption and does not himself know


what schemes are being exempted by reason of the Bill.

Mr. Heath: Perhaps I can clear up the difficulty on which the hon. Member has worked himself up into a passion. I said that this was a proposal based on the 1956 Act and it was not intended to apply to nationalised industries but was intended to be a saving on anything done under the authority of an enactment and which is only for Parliament to decide on and alter. It is not for me to do it in the Bill. If there are any requirements and the hon. Member wants me carefully to examine anything I am perfectly prepared to do so. He no doubt believes from what he said about my reputation that I would be prepared to do my utmost to ensure that these schemes comply. But I have a feeling that my colleagues behind me would prefer that I do it in the next Parliament rather than in this. I am advised that as far as the present circumstances are concerned there are no schemes at the moment which would be covered by this Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14.—(SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move Amendment No. 192, in page 9, line 24, after "months", to insert:
and not more than nine months".
It is an odd fact at this stage of the Committee's consideration of the Bill that, according to Clause 14 as it is drafted, the provisions of the Bill, so far as Clauses 1 to 4 are concerned, may not come into force at any future time at all. After all this time and after all this inquiry, the effect of the wording of Clause 14(2,c) is that the provisions of the Bill, even after the Royal Assent, may not come into force for an indefinite period. This seems to me to be the correct reading of it.
Subsection (2) states:
The provisions of this Act shall come into force as follows, that is to say—
…(c) sections 1 to 4, on such date (not less than three months after the expiration of the last-mentioned period) as the Board of Trade may, by order made by statutory instrument, appoint.

There is no date within which the Board of Trade is to make the orders, so it can be indefinitely deferred.
We knew that there were mixed feelings about this Bill on the other side of the Committee, but this would be carrying discontent too far, would it not, to leave it as it stands? I should have thought that we could agree on both sides of the Committee that it was desirable that the Amendment, which would make it mandatory upon the Board of Trade to appoint a date, by order, within a period of nine months, would be an improvement in the Bill.

Mr. du Cann: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has a very good theoretical point, if I may say so, but a s a matter of practice I can assure him that he has a very bad point. I imagine alit it was that point that he wished me to meet.
He and the Committee can be sure that the Board of Trade has every intention of making this order, and I can further assure the Commitee, which I think is the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman really is interested in, that there will be no unnecessary delay in bringing these provisions into force. At the same time, we do not think that it would be rig ht for practical reasons for the Board of Trade's hands to be tied to any specific time limit, for a reason which I will now explain.
We should not want, for example, the prohibition to take effect until the Registrar's published list of registered goods was substantially complete. I do not mean to imply in any way that in practice this need take longer than the time specified in the Amendment, but we ought to have some discretion in case unforeseen difficulties should arise. Indeed, I hope he will think that what I am saying accords with something that the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) said earlier.
In repeating, first, that the Board of Trade has every intention of making an order second, that there will be no avoidable delay in making that order; and, third, that there is nothing sinister about the fact that there is no final time limit in this Clause, I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Jay: Surely the Minister is taking this a little lightly. I have no doubt that it may be the sincere and virtuous intention of the present incumbents of the Board of Trade to bring this Measure into force as soon as possible, but we have to look at this from the point of view of legislation. What Ministers are asking Parliament to do is to go through this vast process of legislation and cerebration, improving, amending and ex-cogitating an elaborate piece of legislation, and then accept that, of course, it might not come into force for 20 years or even until the end of the next speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) unless the Board of Trade otherwise determine. I have great doubt that we ought to carry our handing over of power to the Executive quite to that extent. It is hardly legislation at all.
We have all these decisions about gateways, exemptions, substantial detriment and the rest, we think we have legislated, but nothing need happen after the Royal Assent until the Minister at the Board of Trade, whoever he may happen to be, shall determine. We ought not to pass legislation of any kind on the assumption that present Ministers will be there eternally or even until the legislation is amended.
There may be a difficulty about the exact period, whether 9 months, 12 months or 18 months, before one can be certain that the legislation should apply, but there is definitely a case in principle for having some sort of time limit imposed by Parliament and not leaving the whole thing to the sweet will of some executive Minister whose identity or intentions we do not now know.

Mr. H. Lever: I am not sure whether I should give my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) the doubtful value of my thoughts on this matter. It seems to trouble him when I intervene in any sense against his own very considerable enthusiasm for the Bill. But in this case, although I deplore the Bill, I agree that, once the House of Commons has taken the decision that it shall come into force, it would be quite extraordinary to leave to the discretion of a Departmental Minister whether the most important parts of it should ever come into effect at all.
Nobody pretends to real anxiety that the Minister would desire to sit back and not bring it into force for some malign purpose, and I of all persons would be the least anxious to hurry it along. I agree also that the Board of Trade should have adequate time to prepare itself. But we must have some sort of time limit to it for the sake of good legislative order. Is there any great difficulty in prescribing a time limit of, say, 12 months from the date of the Royal Assent?
Is there any precedent for making the whole operation of a Bill of this kind dependent purely on the discretion of a Department? I know of none. Cannot we have an undertaking from the Minister—not that we suspect him of wanting the Bill for demonstration purposes only—that he will put in a time limit of, say, 12 months?

Mr. du Cann: In answer to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), it is not a question of saying that this legislation will not come into effect at all. We say clearly, by introducing it, and I have said clearly tonight, that it will come into effect and there will be no avoidable delay in bringing its provisions into force.

Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is only a statement by him. Although we do not doubt the sincerity of his intentions, he may not have the power, or be in a position, to carry them out. We have no legislative certainty, if we leave the matter as it is, that the Bill will come into force at all.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. du Cann: If there were difficulty of that kind—it is really so remote a possibility as to be beyond serious consideration—it would be perfectly open to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends and to my right hon. and hon. Friends to put down a series of Questions and make a considerable fuss. Parliament has its remedies, which are very much better known to the right hon. Gentleman, with all his experience, than they are to me. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough, however, to acknowledge the difficulty of timing and this is, obviously, a point which is of practical importance.
In answer to the hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever), the way in which the Bill is drafted is quite common form, as, I am sure, he knows from his Parliamentary experience. Therefore, in sum, we see no reason for putting in a time limit, but we will of course consider what has been said during the debate. I hope, therefore that the Committee win see fit to reject the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(RIGHT OF REAPPEARANCE.)

(1) Where in proceedings under sections 20 or 22 of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956, the Restrictive Practices Court has declared that a restriction relating to any goods is not contrary to the public interest, any person or association who was represented in those proceedings and who has duly given notice under section 6 of this Act in respect of goods of that description may apply to the Court in accordance with this section.

(2) On an application made under this section the Court may make an order directing that goods of a description to which a restriction such as is referred to in the last foregoing subsection of this section relates shall be exempted goods for the purposes of this Act if, having regard to its judgment in the proceedings under sections 20 and 22 of the said Act of 1956 it appears to the Court that in default of a system of maintained minimum resale prices applicable to goods of that description—

(a) the continued operation of a restriction which was found by the Court to be not contrary to the public interest would become impracticable or would no longer produce the results by reason of which the said restriction was held by the Court to be not contrary to the public interest; or
(b) the continued operation of any other restriction not materially different from such a restriction and contained in an agreement which is registered under Part I of the said Act of 1956 and to which a person making the application is a party, would become impracticable or would no longer produce such results

unless in any such case the Registrar adduces prima facie evidence of a material change in the relevant circumstances since the previous decision of the Court.

(3) On any application made under this section any person or association who has duly given notice under section 6 of this Act in respect of goods of the same description as the goods referred to in the application shall be entitled to be represented before the Court.

(4) If, on an application made under this section, the Court refuses to make an order direct-

ing that goods of any description referred to in the application shall be exempted goods, no further application may he made under this section in respect of those goods on the basis of the proceedings under sections 20 or 22 of the said Act of 1956 on which the application was based but, subject thereto, goods of that description shall not thereafter, for the purposes of this Act, be treated in any way differently from other goods in respect of which notice has been given under section 6 of this Act and in respect of which no application under this section has been made.—[Mr. Turton]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

I apologise to the Committee for raising at this hour a complex and substantial point dealing with those who have already been adjudged by the Restrictive Practices Court to have systems that are in the public interest. This clearly presents a problem that we must meet in some way. My new Clause proposes an expedited procedure for those systems provided that there has been, in the view of the Registrar, no material change in the relevant circumstances since the previous decision of the Court. In other words, it is putting them in the same position in that respect as those who, under Clause 7, will later have been adjudged to have systems that are in the public interest. They cannot be retried unless the Registrar can adduce evidence that there has been a material change.

If the Registrar finds that there has been a material change, they will have to go before the Court under exactly the same procedure as any other manufacturer or system under the Bill. That is dealt with in subsection (4) of the new Clause. Subsection (3) gives those who are interested in similar products the same rights as they have under Clause 6, so that they can be represented before the Coin during the proceedings.

This is an important Clause, particularly for the three industries that have already been before the Restrictive Practices Court: the net book agreement, cement and the Black nuts and bolts agreement. The net book agreement, which was discussed earlier on my Amendment to Clause 5, cost the respondents £35,000 to fight and win their case before the Court, and it took them three years. Clearly, it would be undue hardship and financial burden to ask those who have just been through the


Court, the judgment having been reported only in 1962, to go to similar expense to prove exactly the same facts.

When we were discussing the gateways in Clause 5, I understood my right hon. Friend to say that in his view the net book agreement would probably succeed under gateways (a) and (b) of that Clause. He pointed out that they had been adjudged not to succeed under gateway (c), and he offered on Report to insert a new gateway dealing with price. Price was, of course, the major reason why net book agreements succeeded when they came before the Court in 1962.

Clearly it would be a hardship on them to have to fight through these gateways so shortly after they had succeeded in fighting their case before the Court. There is another consideration. If we adopt expedited procedure for the first application there will be nothing to prevent the Court using Clause 7 if there is a material change later. In other words, the three who have been through the Court will not be in any better position than any other successful applicant to the Court because, once material change has been proved, they will be in exactly the same position as before.

I appreciate that there is the difficulty that we have not yet seen the fifth gateway my right hon. Friend has promised to table but, assuming that it will be as he explained it—one on price that will meet the point of the more expensive books in the net book agreement judgment—I feel he could even now accept this Clause to give expedited procedure.

It might well be that, in view of the fact that he has not yet drafted the new fifth gateway, he may feel that this procedure is a matter he could pay attention to at a later stage and not tonight, but I hope that he will make it clear that he accepts that there is an obligation on the Committee to make some special treatment for those who so recently succeeded before the Court on the question of what is or is not in the public interest.

I suggest that this Clause would meet the situation without making any exceptional treatment for those who have gone through the Court compared with others who have not had to prove their case before the Court. I would rather it

were done this way than in the way the Attorney-General hinted at on Clause 8, when he gave the idea that there might be some provision for costs in this case.

Under this expedited procedure the cost to the two parties—the Registrar and the trade concerned—would be less in money in fighting the case, and that would be more in the public interest than if the longer procedure of the Bill as drafted is taken, when they would spend far more. I hope my right hon. Friend will accept the Clause or make it clear that, if it is withdrawn now, he will look into the matter and accept the principle on Report stage.

Mr. Geoffey Stevens: I should like briefly but strongly to support what my right hon. Friend has said. He talked about the hardship which certain trades would be caused if they had to go through the hoop once again. He called it hardship; it would be absolutely monstrous if these trades, having proved their cases before the Court on one occasion, were asked to do so again. The process has already cost them an enormous sum of money, and I see no reason why they should be caused to be at risk of losing such sums again.
In the Second Reading debate my right hon. Friend the Minister said that the Court would no doubt take into consideration the fact that these trades had previously proved their cases. That is not nearly sufficient a safeguard. I recall that my right hon. Friend also said that the House should not try to dictate what the Restrictive Practices Court should decide. But surely the House makes the laws. We decide what the courts are to determine, and they then interpret the laws. If we say that the Court is not to examine these cases it is not for the Court to do so. I should have thought that it was clear that the three industries to which my right hon. Friend referred constituted a special case, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to go at least as far as my right hon. Friend has asked.

Mr. Heath: As my right hon. Friend has said, this is a long and very complex new Clause. He has made a very succinct comment upon it. I assure him that I recognise—as I did in the


Second Reading debate—the position in the three cases to which he referred, and which we have discussed on previous occasions, which have been before the Court and have been exempted, and which concern, directly or indirectly, resale price maintenance. I am anxious to find a way of dealing with them.
I am not entirely convinced at the moment that the new Clause would deal with all the problems that would arise. My right hon. Friend said that the object was to put these trades into the same position as any other trade under Clause 7. This is a complicated legal matter, and I have doubts whether it puts them into the same position under that Clause. I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstorte (Mr. Stevens) suggested that they should be permanently exempted. Therefore, we have the problem how the review can take place, and how we can take notice of a change in material circumstances.
There are one or two other difficulties about the Clause as it is at present worded. It would not be confined to those cases where proceedings had already been taken under the 1956 Act; it would also apply where an agreement went before the Court after the Bill was passed.
It would allow the law of exemption to follow, under the Bill, for individual resale price maintenance, merely because a collective r.p.m. agreement had 41 been upheld under the 1956 Act. Apart from those considerations the effect of the Clause would be that even if the collective agreement were abandoned by the parties individual resale price maintenance would remain lawful. This would be so even if the Court had considered resale price maintenance only as incidental to the collective agreement.
Yesterday, when we were discussing the matter, I pointed out that in all three cases r.p.m. had been justified as being necessary to the collective agreement. But if the collective agreement disappeared, under the Clause individual r.p.m. would remain lawful.
12 m.
The other point, which I have already mentioned, is the question of the power of the Court to review the exemption order in proceedings under Clause 7.

The fundamental difficulty arises because under the 1956 Act there has been a general gateway and under this Bill we have got the particular gateways, and so one of the problems we have to overcome in the review procedure is to have regard for these circumstances. That is another point to which I should like to give great attention. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that we have been examining this with great care. It is a very complicated legal matter and the inter-relationship of the 1956 Act and this Bill is a very complicated one.
At the same time, I give him a reassurance that I want to find a way of dealing with these particular cases and the other element he has mentioned, which is the new gateway which I discussed lest night, and about which I gave an undertaking. If my right hon. Friend will withdraw his proposed Clause and give us time between now and Report stage to examine in detail these proposals, and see if there are ways of getting around the difficulties, I would undertake to do that. I have noted the remarks about the Attorney's suggestions on costs. I hope that by the time we get to Report stage we will have found an effective way of meeting these points.

Mr. Turton: After that undertaking from my right hon. Friend, I am very pleased to beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule.—(TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 10, line 8, after "injunction", insert "or other relief".
The point which arises out of these transitional provisions, which are rather elaborate in character, concerns those that have to deal with the case of a contract which has been made before the commencement of Clause 1 of the Bill. I would ask the Committee to consider the case of a contract entered into between the parties before this Bill takes effect, and that contract containing an r.p.m. clause.
By the effect of these transitional provisions that r.p.m. clause in the pre-Act contract is voided, as I understand it.


This means that a plaintiff—a member of the public, a retailer or the Attorney-General—may commence proceedings for injuction against a supplier, a party to such a pre-Act contract, for withholding supplies. One can see the sense of that up to that point.
All I want to draw to the attention of the Committee is that rather odd results flow from this. Envisage the case of a dealer who is defending an action for damages for breach of contract brought by a supplier, involved in an action for damages for breach of contract in the case of a pre-Act contract. The effect of these transitional provisions is that that contract becomes valid for certain purposes and not for others. It is that feature of the situation which may give rise to certain difficulties.
Because of the case I have suggested of a dealer defending for breach of contract for actions brought by a supplier, he might be found liable for damages for breach of contract and yet, at virtually the same time, the successful plaintiff in that action for damages under the pre-Act contract might be successfully proceeded against for an injunction by a plaintiff in proceedings under this Bill.
That is a result which may flow from the form of these transitional provisions and it is an odd result. I do not say that it is an entirely irrational result. It is possible that this was intended. I acknowledge that there may even be an argument that it has a good intention, but it is a rather curious result if I understand the matter aright. We feel that we should hear the arguments for a provision which could have such unexpected consequences as I have put forward.

The Attorney-General: I can assure the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) that this provision, like all the others, is well intended and has good intentions behind it. I think that it can be justified logically. I do not think it right to say that it produces an odd result. It is certainly wrong to say that as from the moment

Clause 1 comes into operation the provisions do not become void; they become wholly void from that moment.
The result intended by these transitional provisions is intended to carry this into operation. The moment a contract is broken the right to damages crystallises and there is no earthly reason why action should not be taken for breach of contract. But, as from the moment that the Bill becomes law that provision will become void. It is for this reason that it is necessary to make provision in the Schedule for the transitional provisions and that thereafter one should not be able to enforce such a contract by an injunction.
It would be absurd, the Act having come into operation and the provision having become void, that one should be able to get an injunction thereafter or that an injunction granted previously should continue to operate. For this reason, the provision is drawn as it is. I hope that with that explanation it will appear neither odd nor unnecessary.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the explanation, which I think makes the matter clear. I feel certain reservations. I do not envy the condition and state of mind of a defendant who has to pay damages for breach of contract to a plaintiff and then—perhaps on the following day—sees another plaintiff successfully taking proceedings against the plaintiff in his action on matters arising from the same contract. I think that I was justified in suggesting that the consequences of these transitional provisions might be in certain circumstances rather odd. I do not feel inclined to retract from that observation, but none the less, we have received a substantial explanation of the purpose and I am conscious of the logic of it.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments: as amended, to be considered this day and to be printed. [Bill 132.]

BRITISH ARMY (POLISH EX-OFFICERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLaren.]

12.10 a.m.

Sir John Eden: At this late hour I have the honour and opportunity to introduce a short debate concerning the claims of Regular officers of the Polish Armed Forces who served under British command during the last war.
This debate will be listened to and read with keen interest by many of the men concerned, and none more so than by a constituent of mine who was one of these officers, Major Frankowski. Though now he is 67 and is getting on in years, he is still young and tough in spirit, and he can look back with justifiable pride on a most distinguished record of military service spanning two wars and 34 years, eight of which were spent under British command in the last war. He has been decorated by many countries other than Poland, but I imagine that the Polish decorations must be among the proudest that he carries, for they include the Independence Cross, the Cross for Valour with three bars, the Silver Cross for Merit and others.
Since the end of the war, like others, he has been fighting a different kind of battle. He has been fighting for what he regards as his rights. He has been fighting for nothing less than the dignity of a pension. It is hard to find the exact numbers of his colleagues who are still alive today in this country. I have been given a whole range of figures, but it may well be about 140,000, or it may be very much less. But whatever the exact number of ex-Regulars concerned in this debate, they will all be over the age of 50 and many of them will be over the age of 60. These were men in the Polish Brigade and the Polish Armoured Division—men who took part in the Battle of Britain, who fought with our soldiers in Tobruk and Monte Cassino and Anthem. These were the moments they shared with us, and their colleagues died with our own troops. Many of these men are now in extremely straitened circumstances. These circumstances have been referred to in previous debates. I have particularly in mind a debate which took place in another place on 11th July, 1962.
These men have had to find such jobs as they could. A few of them have managed to maintain their sense of humour anc some of them are members of what they now call "The Silver Brigade". I will not labour this point because is it well known to hon. Members who have studied this subject.
The point I do wish to labour, however, is the fact that these men have had and still have one thing in common. They were Regular soldiers of an army—admittedly an army of a country other than our own—and, as Regular soldiers, they were members of a very great profession. Not only were they members of an honourable profession, but their terms of service with the Polish Army, as with the terms of service with the British Army, assumed that at the end of active employment a pension would have been earned and chat one would be paid.
The history of the creation of the Polish Resettlement Corps, its subsequent developments and the many provisions which have been made by Her Majesty's Government to assist the members of that Corps are well known to hon. Members and I will not at this stage recount them. I want to concentrate solely on the question of the provision of a pension. appreciate that pensions as such were not mentioned in the Anglo-Polish Agreement of 1940, but at that time, as was made clear by Lord Windlesham in 1962 when he raised this matter in another place, the assumption was that these soldiers would be able to return to their own country and hat their own country would then have been in a position to honour the obligations of service.
Then came Yalta. The Yalta Agreement resulted in many of them, including my constituent, being deprived of their nationality. For my constituent it has meant that he has never been able to return to hit country, he has been cut off from his family, his first wife died from cancer without his being able to go back there, he has never seen, apart from years ago, his own son or laid eyes on his grandchildren. My constituent has no country other than Britain to which to turn and we have recognised this through the various schemes of assistance which we have provided, although we have never gone so far as to recognise that a greater obligation rests on us—because we were parties to the Yalta


Agreement—to provide these ex-Regular soldiers with a form of pension which they might have got had they been able to return to Poland.
I have the outline of a scheme for the payment of pensions. The pension should not be paid on account of length of service but rather the qualification for receipt of a pension should be the age of the ex-Regular soldier. If the benefits were graded according to rank within the range of from £450 to £650 a year and they were payable to each former Regular on reaching the age of 60, I am informed that the total number of beneficiaries might be about 1,300 and that the total cost would be about £700,000.
If we deduct the savings that would accrue in regard to payments of National Assistance and other forms of benefit that are already available through the existence of the Special Fund, this sum might be reduced to about £350,000. That £350,000 could be further reduced if the category of the beneficiaries were changed—if, for example, the age of receipt of pension were made 65 instead of 60. If that were done, some alternative provision could also be made.
It has been suggested to me that the pension should be paid to those men at age 60 or 65 whose incomes are at a level which would make them eligible now for National Assistance. I am prepared at once to recognise that this is giving a pension label to National Assistance, and those of us who have taken part in the debates on the social services know only too well the difficulty many people find in accepting National Assistance.
Naturally, I have tried to explain to these people that money raised out of taxation and paid to a beneficiary still comes from the same source, no matter what label may be attached to it. But that is not enough to satisfy men in this position. They have pride—a natural and understandable pride—and many of them, greatly distinguished in war, fine serving soldiers, would never turn to National Assistance for succour, no matter how great their need. They want to feel that they are honourably in receipt of a pension, and it is only a pension that is really commensurate with the dignity of their position as serving soldiers of Poland.
There is, at the moment, this fund. There are also other institutions of Poland kept alive in this country and supported by funds which could, and should, be increased, so that these people may continue to preserve their customs and traditions. But what I am most anxious to do—it is the whole point of my speech—is to try to help these men to maintain and retain their hold on something that is much more difficult to provide—their self-respect. I know that my hon. Friend will understand this.
My constituent has a family motto: "Better to die on the feet than to live on the knees." Whatever is done in other countries, whatever have been the difficulties in the past, this is a diminishing band of warriors. The provision of a pension is something we are in honour bound to do, and I strongly urge further consideration of this matter upon my hon. Friend and upon the Government.

12.24 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Peter Kirk): My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) has raised a subject that none of us can contemplate without considerable emotion; the immense service rendered by the officers and men of the Polish Army in the last war is something that I hope the people of this country will never forget. As my hon. Friend knows, I was for some time associated in another assembly with the needs of people, not only from Poland but from other countries now behind the Iron Curtain. I got to know very well many of the officers and men from those countries who are now living—and we are very glad to have them in this country. It is an extremely difficult problem, as my hon. Friend recognised in the very moderate speech which he has just made, but it is one to which successive Governments have given very considerable thought.
Perhaps I might illustrate some of the ways in which we have tried to cope with this problem by taking the case which my hon. Friend has raised, that is, the case of his constituent Major Frankowski. We have tried to ensure, leaving aside for the moment the question of the Service pension that any former member of the Polish Armed Forces and, for that matter, any Polish


citizen living in this country as a result of the last war, shall be treated in the same way as any British citizen, whether he is a naturalised citizen or not.
Major Frankowski was a Regular in the Polish Forces and served under British command from 27th June, 1940, to 14th November, 1948, the last two years of that period being in the Polish Resettlement Corps to which my hon. Friend has referred. Actually my Ministry has no direct knowledge of him as he made no direct claim for a war pension, and I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for the information that I have about the case. I am also much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for coming along and giving me his moral support this evening.
The Ministry of Pensions' knowledge of the case was a result of Major Frankowski's evidence to a local appeals tribunal in 1959, to which be was appealing against the disallowance of his claim to sickness benefit. On conclusion of the appeal action, the Ministry called for the relevant Service documents and also obtained a record of his incapacity as shown in National Insurance records since 1948. After considering all the evidence available, it was decided that a claim for a war disability pension was not likely to succeed and that to invite a claim would only raise false hopes. No action was therefore taken.
I should like to stress that it was the Ministry in this case which took the initiative to see if it was possible to find a way to help Major Frankowski with a war disability pension. My hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary assures me that he would, of course, be prepared to consider now a claim to a war disability pension if Major Frankowski were to make one, but as in 1959 I am advised that he does not think it would have any very great chance of success.
Prior to March, 1959, Major Frankowski had been in receipt of National Insurance sickness benefit, but his claim was disallowed from 20th March, 1959, as he had then received benefit for 312 days and had not paid the 156 contributions as an employed or self-employed

person which would have entitled him to benefit without limit of time. He then appealed to the local appeals tribunal which, as required by the National Insurance Act, directed that the contribution question should be referred to the Minister. I think my hon. Friend can see that Major Frankowski was treated as any British citizen would have been treated in these circumstances.
Major Frankowski's record showed that he entered insurance on 5th July, 1948, when the National Insurance Act came into operation. The question arose whether he should have been insured under the former National Health Insurance Acts during the period from 1st July, 1940, to 4th July, 1948. He served in the Polish Land Forces and at 6th September, 1946, he was commissioned in the Polish Resettlement Corps.
Members of the Polish Land Forces were not incurably employed within the meaning of the National Health Insurance Acts and Major Frankowski was not, therefore, insured under the Acts. The position of officers of the Polish Resettlement Corps was regarded as analogous to that of persons granted emergency commissions in His Majesty's Forces, as they were at that time, that is, they were not insurable during service unless they were insured for health or pension purposes on taking up their commission.
As Major Frankowski was not insured during his service in the Polish Land Forces he was not eligible to be insured in respect of his commissioned service in the Polish Resettlement Corps. A decision was given to this effect and as the contribution conditions for receipt of sickness benefit from 20th March, 1959, were not satisfied, the local tribunal had to dismiss the appeal.
This, as I have said, is the problem that arises in these cases. Many of these gentlemen were not insurable under the terms of the Act as it then was, but following the disallowance of his claim to benefit he requalified for benefit following a further period of insurance. He then drew sickness benefit from July, 1959, until he reached retirement age and he now receives a National Insurance Pension at the full rate. He would also be entitled to assistance from the National Assistance Board and I must mention in passing that of course the National Assistance


Board pays in addition to the retirement pension what is generally referred to as a supplementary pension because that is what it is intended to be.
To come to the broader question whether these gentlemen should receive war pensions as opposed to war disability pensions which are what I have been talking about, official benefits granted to Polish ex-Service men include the payment of war gratuities and disability pensions and the payment of pensions to dependants when Polish ex-Servicemen died as a result of service. In addition, in the post-war period the Polish Resettlement Corps was created as a unit of the British Army to find suitable employment in this country. The Polish Resettlement Act of 1947 provided special help for these men to integrate them into the life of this country.
As I hope I have indicated in the history of Mr. Frankowski's case, Polish ex-Service men are entitled to benefit under the National Insurance scheme and are eligible for National Assistance in exactly the same way as our own nationals. Ex-gratia pensions were awarded to the commanders in the field of the three Polish Services and to the Army Chief of Staff. Certain ex-gratia grants or loans were offered to other senior officers to help in their resettlement.
This was all done in the period immediately after the war but then there was the argument whether we should or should not grant pensions to regular Polish ex-Service men, which in effect meant Regular officers and senior n.c.os., because most of the other ranks in the Polish Army were conscripts and would not have qualified.
Successive Administrations have considered the suggestion that the pre-war service of Polish ex-Regulars should count as reckonable service towards a pension on a British basis, but they all decided that it would be inequitable, in the light of what has already been done for Polish ex-Service men, to expect the British taxpayer to meet a large bill for pensions in respect of services mainly given before the war to the former Polish Government. Any scheme for pensions on an ex-gratia basis could not be justified as it would mean giving Polish ex-

Service men preferential treatment beyond that given to British ex-Service men.
This is the position which we have had to take up and it is the position that has been taken up by other countries which have the same problem, basically the United States, Canada and France. None of these countries, although they make available certain benefits, pay regular pensions to former officers or n.c.o's of the Polish Armed Forces. Although I think that we all recognise the special link between this country and Poland and particularly with those Poles who fought so gallantly alongside us during the war, it would be asking too much of us to give—

Sir. J. Eden: The point which I really wanted to emphasise to my hon. Friend I would emphasise again in the form of a question. Would he not agree that a Regular soldier is right in thinking that at the end of his engagement he will get a pension? If my hon. Friend agrees, would he say to which country Polish ex-Regulars can now turn for their pensions?

Mr. Kirk: This, of course, is the difficulty that we are in. It is perfectly true that regular soldiers and officers enlisting in armed forces can rightly expect a pension at the end of their services provided that something totally unforeseen did not intervene, which in this case it did. If we were to institute pensions for the 1,500 to 2,000 Regulars involved in this it would cost us approaching £5 million a year which would be a fairly heavy charge. My hon. Friend has put forward an alternative scheme on which, of course, he will not expect me to comment in any detail. In any case, as far as I can make out, it would require legislation. I doubt if there is any Act at the moment which would cover it, and therefore I am debarred from commenting in any detail upon it.
I should like in the few minutes remaining to say something about the new measures which we took last year to try to help in this problem. This was the introduction of an annual grant for the relief of distress. Originally introduced in 1963, it was £50,000, but almost immediately it was increased for the year 1964–65 by 50 per cent. to £75,000, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, as he then was, to the House on 5th February.
Those eligible for help from the grant are
Polish ex-Service men,
whether they arc ex-Regular or not,
who served under British command during the 1939–45 war and who are now resident in the United Kingdom.
The term "ex-Service men" covers ex-Service women as well, and there is no requirement that beneficiaries should be naturalised.
The British Legion has accepted the responsibility of administering and disbursing the grant in accordance with terms of reference issued by my Ministry. The Legion has set up an advisory committee to determine the general policy under which payments will be made, and an executive committee responsible for considering and making recommendations in individual cases. The first committee is chaired by General Sir Roy Bucher and comprises representatives of the National Assistant Board, of non-Polish welfare organisations, of Polish associations and representatives of General Anders. The Army Department attend as observers. The executive committee is chaired by a Polish general and comprises representatives of the National Assistance Board, United Kingdom welfare organisations and Polish associations. I am sure it will be the wish of the House that I should express to the British Legion, and particularly to General Bucher, our real appreciation of the additional task that they have undertaken in this regard.
It is impossible to say with certainty how many potential claimants there are, but it has been estimated that there are some 80,000 Polish ex-Service men resident in the United Kingdom. During the first year of operation a little over 2,000 were assisted, some of these by regular weekly allowances and some by lump sum grants to meet some particular crisis which had arisen.

Sir J. Eden: Can my hon. Friend say how many of those were Regulars?

Mr. Kirk: No, I cannot break down the number at the moment. A handful of those were also given a lump sum grant. About 1,500 were also drawing National Assistance.
I should say that the Polish organisations in this country have very

generously acknowledged the help which we have given to them, and I should like to quote from a letter to General Bucher front the Polish Ex-Combatants Association in Great Britain, in which they say:
The 17th Annual General Meeting of the Polish Ex-Combatants Association in Great Britain expresses to the British authorities and the British Legion their most sincere appreciation for the financial assistance which made it possible to pay grants of money to ex-members of the Polish Forces Abroad who are in genuine need and distress.
What we are trying to do to meet this problem is, first of all, to place all Polish ex-Service men in this country on the same basis as any British citizen and, secondly, in order to meet special cases of distress, to set up this fund which, as I say, after one year's work, we increased by 50 per cent., which must be a record for any fund supported out of the British Treasury, in order to cope with sudden emergencies which may arise or to cope with situations where people simply cannot live on the benefits that we can give.
I do not really think we can go very much further than this. While we appreciate the services which were rendered by the Polish ex-Service men to this country, and indeed to the free world as a whole, we also have to recognise that we have a duty to British ex-Service men, to the British taxpayer, and possibly to ex-Service men of other countries also living in this country. I feel that we have made an effort, with the new fund which we have set up, to cope with a difficult situation. We shall certainly be watching it and seeing that the level of the fund is right.
I hope that the fact that we have made this big increase in the fund will be seen as an earnest of our intention to ensure that we: administer it as generously as possible, through the British Legion, in order to help any Polish ex-Service man, Regular or otherwise, who may find himself in distress.

Sir J. Eden: Again on that point, my hon. Friend has said that he is trying to treat Polish ex-Service men on the same basis as any British citizen. But this is not the point. The whole point is that these men should be treated on the same basis as other British ex-Regular soldiers, not as any other


citizen. They were soldiers, and it is as ex-soldiers that they wish to be treated now.

Mr. Kirk: I quite appreciate that point, but I do not think that it is a distinction which we can make. We cannot accept responsibility for pensions for those who served in forces under Governments other than our own. There is no precedent, as far as I know, for any country in the world doing this.

Sir J. Eden: To which Government can they turn?

Mr. Kirk: My hon. Friend asks to which Government they can turn—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes to One o'clock.